[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45472-45481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-831]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

[[Page 45473]]


ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils From Taiwan.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel sheet and strip in coils (``SSSS'') from Taiwan in response to 
requests from respondents Yieh United Steel Corporation (``YUSCO''), 
Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. (``Tung Mung'') and Chia Far Industrial 
Factory Co., Ltd. (``Chia Far''), and petitioners\1\ who requested a 
review of YUSCO, Tung Mung, and Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Company Ltd. 
(``Ta Chen''), Chia Far and any of their affiliates in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213. This review covers imports of subject merchandise from 
YUSCO, Tung Mung, Ta Chen, and Chia Far. The period of review (``POR'') 
is July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation (formerly Armco, 
Inc.), J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, Butler-
Armco Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the 
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our preliminary results of review indicate that Chia Far has sold 
subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during the POR 
and that YUSCO did not make any sales below normal value during the 
POR. Additionally, Tung Mung did not participate in this review. 
Therefore, we are applying an adverse facts available (``AFA'') rate to 
all sales and entries of Tung Mung's subject merchandise during the 
POR. Lastly, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review 
with respect to Ta Chen, because the evidence on the record indicates 
that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on entries of Chia Far's 
and Tung Mung's merchandise during the POR, in accordance with the 
Department's regulations found at 19 CFR 351.106 and 351.212(b).
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments in this segment of the proceeding 
should also submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita (Ta Chen); Cheryl 
Werner (Chia Far); Mesbah Motamed (YUSCO), Marlene Hewitt (Tung Mung); 
or Bob Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243, (202) 
482-2667, (202) 482-1382, (202) 482-1385 or (202) 482-3434, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended the (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

Background

    On July 2, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from 
Taiwan. See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation, 66 FR 34910 (July 2, 2001), as corrected, 66 FR 38455 
(July 24, 2001). On July 30, 2001, YUSCO, Tung Mung and Chia Far, 
producers and exporters of subject merchandise during the POR, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), requested an administrative review 
of the antidumping order covering the period July 1, 2000 through June 
30, 2001. On July 31, 2001, petitioners requested a review of YUSCO, 
Tung Mung, Ta Chen, and Chia Far and its affiliates in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(b). On August 20, 2001, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of 
this order. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 43570 
(August 20, 2001).
    On August 30, 2001, the Department issued questionnaires to YUSCO, 
Tung Mung, Chia Far and Ta Chen. On September 20, 2001, Ta Chen 
informed the Department that it had no shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR, and requested an exemption from 
answering the questionnaire. On October 17, 2001, we sent a letter to 
Tung Mung explaining that we had not received its questionnaire 
response, and that, in the absence of a complete questionnaire 
response, we would be forced to apply facts available, as directed by 
section 776(a) of the Act. On October 19, 2001, Tung Mung submitted a 
letter responding that it would no longer be participating in this 
administrative review.
    On October 4, 2001, YUSCO submitted its Section A questionnaire 
response. On November 13, 2001, YUSCO submitted its Sections B through 
D questionnaire response. On March 22, 2002, we issued a supplemental 
Sections A through C questionnaire to YUSCO and on April 4, 2002, we 
issued a supplemental Section D questionnaire to YUSCO. On April 16, 
2002, YUSCO submitted its supplemental Sections A through C 
questionnaire response and on April 19, 2002, YUSCO submitted its 
supplemental Section D questionnaire response. On April 26, 2002, we 
issued a second supplemental Sections A through D questionnaire to 
YUSCO. On May 6, 2002, YUSCO submitted its second supplemental Sections 
A through D questionnaire response.
    On October 4, 2001, Chia Far submitted its Section A questionnaire 
response. On October 29, 2001, Chia Far submitted its Sections B and C 
questionnaire responses. We issued a supplemental Section A through C 
questionnaire to Chia Far on January 3, 2002. On January 4, 2002, Chia 
Far submitted its Section D questionnaire response. On January 31, 
2002, Chia Far submitted its supplemental Sections A through C 
questionnaire response. On March 13, 2002, we issued a supplemental 
Section D questionnaire to Chia Far. On April 5, 2002, we issued a 
second supplemental Sections A through C questionnaire to Chia Far. On 
April 5, 2002, Chia Far submitted its supplemental Section D 
questionnaire response. On April 22, 2002, we issued a second 
supplemental Section D questionnaire to Chia Far. On April 22, 2002, 
Chia Far submitted its second supplemental Sections A through C 
questionnaire response, and on May 3, 2002, submitted its second 
supplemental Section D questionnaire response.
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit. On March 6, 2002, the Department extended the 
time limit for the preliminary results in this review to July 1, 2002. 
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Extension of 
Time Limits for Preliminary Results of

[[Page 45474]]

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 10134 (March 6, 2002).
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the sales and 
cost information provided by YUSCO from May 13, 2002 to May 21, 2002, 
including an examination of relevant sales, cost, and financial 
records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant 
information. We verified sales and cost information provided by Chia 
Far from May 22, 2002 to May 31, 2002. In addition, we verified the 
constructed export price (``CEP'') sales information provided by Chia 
Far on behalf of Lucky Medsup, Inc. (``Lucky Medsup''), its affiliated 
reseller in the United States, from June 13, 2002 to June 14, 2002. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public version of the 
verification reports and are on file in the Central Records Unit 
(``CRU'') located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce 
Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81 , 
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 
7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 
7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 
7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 
7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 
7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 
7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise 
covered by this order is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness 
of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent 
chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties, the Department also 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products were 
excluded from the scope of the investigation and the subsequent order. 
These excluded products are described below.
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (``ASTM'') specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46

[[Page 45475]]

percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high 
temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius 
and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter 
at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the 
production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial 
furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is 
currently available under proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 
36.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (``UNS'') as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 
13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Durphynox 17.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\5\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420, but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6''.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \6\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Ta Chen informed the Department that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
The Department subsequently contacted the U.S. Customs Service, had 
Customs do an inquiry into Ta Chen's exports to the United States 
during the POR, and reviewed Customs' data. There is no evidence on the 
record which indicates that Ta Chen made exports of subject merchandise 
during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and 
consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily 
rescinding our review with respect to Ta Chen. See e.g., Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 
(June 29, 1998); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
53287, 53288 (Oct. 14, 1997).

Facts Available (``FA'')

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information that cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use facts available in reaching the applicable 
determination. 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 a party has failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information. See also the Statement of Administrative Action to the 
URAA, H. Doc. 103-316 (1994) at 870 (``SAA'') (further discussing the 
application of adverse facts available).
    For the preliminary results of review, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2) of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts 
available is appropriate for Tung Mung. We confirmed that Tung Mung 
received the Department's questionnaire. Pursuant to section 782(d) of 
the Act, after the Department did not receive a response to its first 
communication to Tung Mung, it followed up with a letter informing Tung 
Mung of the potential results if it chose not to cooperate further in 
the administration of the review. See Letter to Tung Mung from DOC re: 
Non-response to Questionnaire, dated October 17, 2001. In a letter 
dated October 19, 2001, Tung Mung responded that it was declining to 
respond to the questionnaire or participate in the administrative 
review. Because Tung Mung failed to provide any information on the 
record for this administrative review, we have no alternative but to 
apply total facts available to Tung Mung.
    As noted above, in selecting facts otherwise available, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party, such as Tung Mung, 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with requests for information. Tung Mung has not acted to the best of 
its ability in this administrative review, failing to cooperate in any 
way with the Department. Consistent with Department's practice in cases 
where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and 
in keeping with section 776(b) of the Act, as adverse facts available, 
we have applied a margin based on the highest appropriate margin from 
this or any prior segment of the proceeding. See Elemental Sulphur From 
Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 
77567 (December 12, 2000).
    The Department notes that while the highest margin calculated 
during this or any prior segment of the proceeding is 34.95 percent, 
this margin represents a combined rate applied in a channel transaction 
in the investigation of this proceeding based on middleman dumping by 
Ta Chen. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan, 64 FR 30592 (June 
8, 1999) (``SSSS Investigation'').

[[Page 45476]]

 Where circumstances indicate that a particular margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine another, more appropriate one as facts 
available. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 
1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest margin for use as 
adverse facts available because the margin was based on another 
company's uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an unusually 
high margin). Because the middleman dumping calculated margin would be 
inappropriate, given that the record does not indicate that any of Tung 
Mung's exports to the United States during the POR involved a 
middleman, the Department has applied the highest margin from any 
segment of the proceeding for a producer's direct exports to the U.S. 
without middleman dumping, which is 21.10 percent.
    The rate of 21.10 percent, was applied in the first administrative 
review for another respondent and constitutes secondary information. 
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department, to the extent 
practicable, to corroborate secondary information from independent 
sources that are reasonably at its disposal. 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. 
As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (Nov. 6, 1996), to 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used. However, there are no independent sources from which the 
Department can derive calculated dumping margins. Therefore, unlike 
other types of information such as input costs or selling expenses, the 
only source of dumping margins is the calculated dumping margins from 
previous administrative determinations.
    The Department corroborated the information used to establish the 
21.10 percent rate in the first administrative review, finding the 
information to be both reliable and relevant. See Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682, (February 13, 2002) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 28. Nothing 
on the record of this instant administrative review calls into question 
the reliability of this rate. Furthermore, with respect to the 
relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department has determined that 
there is no evidence on the record which would render the application 
of this margin inappropriate. Therefore, we consider the margin 
relevant to this proceeding as well. Thus, we find that the rate of 
21.0 percent from the first administrative review is sufficiently 
corroborated for purposes of this current administrative review.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether respondent's sales of subject merchandise from 
Taiwan to the United States were made at less than normal value, we 
compared the export price (``EP'') and CEP, as appropriate, to the NV, 
as described in the ``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A of the 
Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared 
these to individual EP and CEP transactions.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the description in the ``Scope of the Review'' 
section of this notice, supra, and sold by YUSCO and Chia Far in the 
home market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purpose 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSSS products sold in 
the United States. We have relied on nine product characteristics to 
match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the 
foreign like product: grade, hot or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, 
metallic coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge. 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 on the basis of the characteristics and reporting 
instructions listed in the August 30, 2001 antidumping duty 
questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (``CV''), as 
appropriate. We made corrections to reported U.S. and home market sales 
data based on the Department's findings at verification, as 
appropriate.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first 
sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the 
date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter 
of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or 
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.

YUSCO

    For purposes of this administrative review, YUSCO classified its 
sales as EP sales, stating that ``(it) sold subject merchandise 
directly to an unaffiliated importer in the United States during the 
POR.'' Therefore, we are using EP as defined in section 772(a) of the 
Act because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, outside the 
United States by YUSCO to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. We made deductions for inland freight (from YUSCO's 
plant to the port of export), international freight, marine insurance, 
container handling fees, certification handling fees, brokerage and 
handling, imputed credit, and packing in accordance with section 772(c) 
of the Act. We made no changes or corrections to the U.S. sales 
information reported by YUSCO as a result of our verification findings 
in the calculation of YUSCO's dumping margin.

Chia Far

    For purposes of this review, Chia Far has classified its sales as 
either EP or CEP sales. We are using EP as defined in section 772(a) of 
the Act for sales of subject merchandise that were sold, prior to 
importation, outside the United States by Chia Far to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. We based EP on the packed prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for 
movement expenses including: foreign inland freight from the plant to 
port of exportation, brokerage and handling, international ocean 
freight, marine insurance, container handling charges, harbor 
construction fees. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount 
for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    We are using CEP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act for sales 
of subject merchandise that were sold,

[[Page 45477]]

after importation, by Lucky Medsup, Chia Far's affiliated reseller, to 
an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We based CEP on the 
packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. 
We made deductions for movement expenses including: foreign inland 
freight from the plant to the port of exportation, international 
freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling, container handling 
charges, harbor construction fees, other U.S. transportation expenses 
and U.S. duty. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for 
duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling 
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses and indirect selling 
expenses.
    We made adjustments to Chia Far's reported inventory carrying costs 
to exclude expenses attributed to the time period between the date of 
shipment and the date of arrival in the United States. See, Analysis 
for the Preliminary Results of Review for Stainless Steel Strip in 
Coils From Taiwan-Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (July 1, 2002) 
(``Chia Far Preliminary Analysis Memo'') and Verification of Sales and 
Cost for Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. in the 2nd Antidumping 
Administrative Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Taiwan (July 1, 2002) (``Chia Far Verification Report''). In addition, 
we revised the U.S. sales listing, based on our findings at 
verification, to account for CEP sales made by Lucky Medsup during the 
POR of subject merchandise which was rejected by the customer and re-
sold after the POR. See Chia Far Preliminary Analysis Memo (July 1, 
2002) and Verification of CEP Sales Made by Lucky Medsup, Inc in the 
2nd Antidumping Administrative Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from Taiwan (``Chia Far CEP Verification Report'') (July 
1, 2002).
    We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under 
sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we 
computed profit based on total revenues realized on sales in both the 
U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. 
We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. 
economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total 
expenses for both the U.S. and home market.

Normal Value

1. Home Market Viability
    For YUSCO and Chia Far, we compared the aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise to determine whether the volume of the foreign like product 
sold in Taiwan was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act, to form a basis for NV. Because the volume of home market sales of 
the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise for both companies, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we have based the determination of 
NV upon the home market sales of the foreign like product. Thus, we 
used as NV the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold 
for consumption in Taiwan, in the usual commercial quantities, in the 
ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same 
level of trade (``LOT'') as the CEP or NV sales, as appropriate.
    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-Constructed Value (``CV'') 
Comparisons'' sections of this notice.
2. Arm's-Length Test
    YUSCO reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated 
and unaffiliated end users and distributors/retailers. Sales to 
affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's length were 
excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at 
arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, movement 
charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing, but including 
the alloy surcharge. Where prices to the affiliated party were on 
average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the affiliated party, we 
determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's 
length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where no affiliated customer ratio could 
be calculated because identical merchandise was not sold to 
unaffiliated customers, we were unable to determine that these sales 
were made at arm's length and, therefore, excluded them from our 
analysis. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 
58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993). Where the exclusion of such sales 
eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison product, we 
made comparisons to the next most similar model. Certain of YUSCO's 
affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's length test. 
Therefore, we have considered the downstream sales from these customers 
to the first unaffiliated customer.
3. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

YUSCO

    Because the Department determined that YUSCO made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the subject merchandise in 
the previous administrative review of YUSCO and therefore excluded such 
sales from normal value, the Department determined that there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that YUSCO made sales in the 
home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in 
this administrative review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As 
a result, the Department initiated a cost of production inquiry to 
determine whether YUSCO made home market sales during the POR at prices 
below their respective COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the 
Act.

Chia Far

    Because we found that Chia Far did not act to the best of its 
ability in providing information to the Department in the previous 
administrative review of Chia Far, we applied total adverse facts 
available, which included a finding on that basis that Chia Far's sales 
were made below cost. The application of total adverse facts available 
applies to all claims on the record, including claims of below-cost 
sales. Thus, we discounted all of Chia Far's home market sales in the 
previous review. Section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act states that if the 
Department has disregarded sales in a previous review because of a 
finding that those sales were made below cost, the Department will have 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales were made below 
cost. As a result, the Department initiated a cost of production 
inquiry to determine whether Chia Far made home market sales during the 
POR at prices below their respective COP within the meaning of section 
773(b) of the Act. We conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of YUSCO's and Chia Far's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home

[[Page 45478]]

market selling, general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), 
including interest expenses, and packing costs. We relied on the COP 
data submitted by YUSCO in its original and supplemental cost 
questionnaire responses. For the preliminary results of review, we 
revised the COP information submitted by Chia Far as follows: 1) We 
revised G&A expense to exclude unrealized foreign exchange-rate and 
translation gains and losses; and 2) we revised interest expenses to 
exclude dividend income as an offset to interest expense. See Chia Far 
Preliminary Analysis Memo (July 1, 2002) and Chia Far Verification 
Report (July 1, 2002).
    We made no changes to the COP information provided to conduct the 
cost test.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
for YUSCO and Chia Far, adjusted where appropriate, to their home 
market sales of the foreign like product as required under section 
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home 
market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such 
sales were made: (1) within an extended period of time, such sales were 
made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were made at prices 
which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. We 
compared the COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement 
charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product within an extended 
period of time are at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard 
any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the extended period were 
at prices less than 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 used POR average 
costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. As a result, we 
disregarded such below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific 
product were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that 
product. Based on this test, we disregarded below-cost sales from our 
analysis for YUSCO and Chia Far. For those sales of subject merchandise 
for which there were no comparable home market sales in the ordinary 
course of trade, we compared EP or CEP to CV, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
D. Calculation of CV
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated 
YUSCO's and Chia Far's constructed value (``CV'') based on the sum of 
their cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, including interest 
expenses, and profit. We calculated the COPs included in the 
calculation of CV as noted above in the ``Calculation of COP'' section 
of this notice. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by YUSCO and 
Chia Far in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like 
product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign 
country. For selling expenses, we used the actual weighted-average home 
market direct and indirect selling expenses. For CV, we made the same 
adjustments described in the COP section above.
Price-to-Price Comparisons

YUSCO

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers and those affiliated customer sales which passed the arm's 
length test. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    We calculated NV based on the home market prices to unaffiliated 
home market customers. Where appropriate, we deducted rebates, warranty 
expenses, and movement expenses (e.g., inland freight from plant to 
customer) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in 
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In 
accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous 
matches to a U.S. sale observation resulted in difference-in-
merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of 
manufacturing (``COM'') of the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.
    We adjusted YUSCO's reported inventory carrying costs and credit 
expenses to account for an error in the short-term interest rate 
discovered at verification. See, Verification of Sales and Cost for 
Yieh United Steel Corporation in the 2nd Antidumping Administrative 
Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan 
(``YUSCO Verification Report''), dated July 1, 2002 and Analysis for 
the Preliminary Results of Review for Stainless Steel Strip in Coils 
From Taiwan- Yieh United Steel Corporation (``YUSCO Preliminary 
Analysis Memo''), dated July 1, 2002. Additionally, we discovered at 
verification that YUSCO could not support the reported date of payment 
for downstream sales of its affiliate, Yieh Mau Corporation (``Yieh 
Mau''). Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a), as partial facts 
available, we have assigned to Yieh Mau's downstream sales a weighted-
average payment date derived from YUSCO's sales to unaffiliated 
customers, and adjusted Yieh Mau's reported credit expenses 
accordingly. See YUSCO Verification Report and YUSCO Analysis Memo. We 
recalculated credit expenses for those YUSCO sales with missing payment 
and shipment dates. For sales with missing payment dates, the 
Department set the date of payment as July 1, 2002, the date of the 
preliminary results. See YUSCO Analysis Memo. Additionally, we 
recalculated credit expenses for those YUSCO sales with missing 
shipment dates. For missing shipment dates, the Department set the 
shipment date as invoice date because invoice most closely approximates 
shipment date. See YUSCO Analysis Memo.

Chia Far

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on the prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the home market. Where appropriate, we deducted movement expenses and 
direct selling expenses, and added U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in 
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs.

[[Page 45479]]

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) 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 sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, 
general and administrative (``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 customer. 
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 
an 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 Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from YUSCO and Chia Far about the marketing stages involved 
in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of 
the selling activities performed by YUSCO and Chia Far for each channel 
of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP, we considered 
only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction 
of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 
2001). Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same in the 
home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that 
are different for different categories of sales, the functions and 
activities should be dissimilar.
    In the present review, neither YUSCO nor Chia Far requested a LOT 
adjustment. To determine whether an adjustment was necessary, in 
accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information 
regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and home 
markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and 
selling expenses.

YUSCO

    In the home market (``HM''), YUSCO reported one level of trade. See 
November 13, 2001 Questionnaire Response from YUSCO, at B-25. YUSCO 
sold through one channel of distribution in the HM. For these HM 
customers, YUSCO provided the following selling functions: inland 
freight, warranty services, and technical advice. Because there is only 
one sales channel involving similar functions for all sales, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    For the U.S. market, YUSCO reported one level of trade. See 
November 13, 2001 Questionnaire Response from YUSCO, at C-21-22. YUSCO 
sold through one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: to an 
unaffiliated local distributor. For U.S. sales, YUSCO provided the 
following selling functions: arranging freight and delivery; invoicing; 
and packing. YUSCO did not incur any expenses in the United States for 
its U.S. sales. Because there is only one sales channel in the United 
States, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the United 
States.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales 
in the HM and U.S. market, we preliminarily determine that the sales in 
the HM and U.S. market were made at the same LOT. Despite the existence 
of certain additional selling functions (i.e., general consultation of 
technical advise and warranty services) performed by YUSCO for its HM 
sales, no significant difference exists in the selling functions 
performed in the HM and U.S. market. Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not 
warranted.

Chia Far

    For its home market sales, Chia Far reported one channel of 
distribution, direct sales from inventory, and two customer categories, 
unaffiliated end users and unaffiliated distributors. For HM sales to 
both distributors and end-users, Chia Far performed many of the same 
major selling functions, including arranging freight and delivery, 
general technical and quality claim assistance (Chia Far stated that 
both were insignificant and therefore reported as indirect selling 
expenses), as well as price negotiation and customer communication, 
sample analysis, and after-sale processing at the customer's request. 
Therefore, based on Chia Far's selling functions performed for each 
type of customer, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in 
the home market.
    For its U.S. sales, Chia Far reported two channels of distribution: 
EP sales made to order; and CEP sales made to order; and one customer 
category: unaffiliated distributors for both EP sales and CEP sales. 
Chia Far sold directly to unaffiliated distributors and, for its CEP 
sales, sold through Lucky Medsup, an affiliated U.S. company, which 
then sold to unaffiliated distributors in the United States. We 
examined the claimed selling functions performed by Chia Far for all 
U.S. sales. Chia Far provided the same level of the following services 
for both its sales made directly to the unaffiliated U.S. customer (EP 
sales) and sales made to Lucky Medsup (CEP sales) in the United States: 
arranging inland freight to the port and delivery, packing, processing 
inquiries and purchase orders, invoicing, and extending credit. For EP 
sales, Chia Far provided additional services including international 
freight, marine insurance, and banking charges.
    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 Chia Far 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 level of trade constituted a different level of trade 
than the CEP level of trade. Chia Far did not request a CEP offset. 
Nonetheless, in accordance with the principles discussed above, we 
examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the 
United States and Taiwan markets, including the selling functions, 
classes of customer, and selling expenses to determine whether a CEP 
offset was necessary. For CEP sales, Chia Far provided many of the same 
selling functions and expenses for its sale to its affiliated U.S. 
reseller Lucky Medsup as it provided for its home market sales, 
including price negotiation and customer communication, sample 
analysis, and inland freight. Based on our analysis of the channels of

[[Page 45480]]

distribution and selling functions performed for sales in the home 
market and CEP sales in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that 
there is not a significant difference in the selling functions 
performed in the home market and the U.S. market for CEP sales. Thus, 
we find that Chia Far's NV and CEP sales were made at the same LOT, and 
no LOT adjustment or CEP offset need be granted.
    For EP sales in the U.S. market, Chia Far provided the same level 
of the following services for both EP and NV sales: price negotiation 
and customer communication; processing of customer order; and inland 
freight. For EP sales, Chia Far did not provide sample analysis during 
this review, however, this was only a minor difference. Furthermore, 
Chia Far provided additional services including international freight, 
marine insurance, and banking charges. Based on our analysis of the 
selling functions performed for sales in the HM and EP sales in the 
U.S. market described above, we preliminarily determine that there is 
not a significant difference in the selling functions performed in the 
home market and U.S. market and that these sales are made at the same 
LOT.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on the 
official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Section 773A(a) of 
the Act directs the Department to use the daily exchange rate in effect 
on the date of sale in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. 
dollars, unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In 
accordance with the Department's practice, we have determined as a 
general matter that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate 
differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See, e.g., Certain Stainless 
Steel Wire Rods from France; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915, 8918 (March 6, 1998), and Policy 
Bulletin 96-1: Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8, 1996). The 
benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past 40 
business days. When we determine a fluctuation exists, we substitute 
the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period July 1, 
2000 through June 30, 2001:

          Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter/ reseller              Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YUSCO................................................               0.00
Chia Far.............................................               1.01
Tung Mung............................................              21.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party 
may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these 
preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, 
will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first 
working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/
or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues 
raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days 
after the date of publication. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Further, we would 
appreciate it if parties submitting written comments also provide the 
Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results, pursuant to 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment

    Upon issuance of the final results of this review, the Department 
shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 
Department has calculated an assessment rate applicable to all 
appropriate entries. We calculated importer-specific duty assessment 
rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value, or 
entered quantity, as appropriate, of the examined sales for that 
importer. Upon completion of this review, where the assessment rate is 
above de minimis, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess 
duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results of administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash 
deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed 
in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a 
particular product is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash 
deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original less than fair value (``LTFV'') 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate 
of 21.10 percent, which is the all others rate established in the LTFV 
investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, that continues to govern 
business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. 
Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply

[[Page 45481]]

with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 1, 2002.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-17198 Filed 7-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S