[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51216-51224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19992]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-834]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of 
Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and Intent To Rescind in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of 
antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel sheet and 
strip in coils from the Republic of Korea.

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

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 the Republic of Korea in 
response to a request from respondents Pohang Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. 
(``POSCO''), Samwon Precision Metals Co., Ltd. (``Samwon''), Daiyang 
Metal Co., Ltd. (``DMC''), and petitioners,\1\ who requested a review 
of POSCO and DMC. This review covers imports of subject merchandise 
from POSCO and DMC. 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 POSCO and DMC have 
sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during 
the POR. We have also preliminarily determined to rescind the review 
with respect to Samwon because the evidence on the record indicates 
that Samwon had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess antidumping duties on entries of POSCO's and DMC's subject 
merchandise during the POR, in accordance with Sections 19 CFR 351.106 
and 351.212(b) of the Department's regulations.

[[Page 51217]]

    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: August 7, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita (POSCO and Samwon), 
Lilit Astvatsatrian (DMC), or Robert Bolling, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4243, (202) 482-6412, 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 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 (``URAA''). 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 
the Republic of Korea. 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 31, 2001, petitioners 
requested a review of POSCO and DMC in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1). Also, on July 31, 2000, POSCO, Samwon, and DMC, 
producers and exporters of subject merchandise during the POR, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), each requested administrative 
reviews of the antidumping order covering the period July 1, 2000, 
through June 30, 2001. 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 27, 2001, Samwon informed the Department that it made no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
We have confirmed this information with the U.S. Customs Service. For 
further discussion, see the ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of 
this notice, below.
    On August 29, 2001, the Department issued questionnaires for this 
review to POSCO and DMC. POSCO and DMC submitted Section A 
questionnaire responses on October 3, 2001. On November 5, 2001, POSCO 
submitted its Sections B through D questionnaire responses and DMC 
submitted its Sections B through E questionnaire responses. POSCO 
submitted its cost reconciliation on November 5, 2001, in the context 
of the Section D response, and DMC submitted its cost reconciliation on 
November 19, 2001.
    On October 23, 2001, DMC requested that the Department adjust DMC's 
cost reporting period to conform more closely with its fiscal year 
reporting period. On October 25, 2001, the Department requested 
additional information from DMC in order to evaluate DMC's request. DMC 
submitted the requested information on November 15, 2001. On the same 
date, petitioners submitted a letter regarding DMC's reporting of its 
cost using the fiscal year rather than the period of review. On 
November 27, 2001, the Department granted DMC's request to report its 
COP and CV information for its April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001, 
fiscal year rather than for the period of review, July 1, 2000, through 
June 30, 2001.
    On December 13, 2001, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to POSCO and DMC covering their Section A though E 
responses. POSCO and DMC provided supplemental questionnaire responses 
on January 19, 2002.
    On December 19, 2001, in a memorandum to the file from Catherine 
Bertrand through James Doyle, Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from 
Korea: Sales Below Cost Investigation, we informed DMC that since the 
Department disregarded DMC's sales below cost from its analysis in the 
final results of the first administrative review (see Stainless Steel 
Sheet and Strip From the Republic of Korea; Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 64950 
(December 17, 2001)), it was therefore initiating a sales below cost 
investigation for the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. Our 
memorandum noted that DMC had already filed its Section D response on 
November 5, 2001.
    The Department issued its second supplemental questionnaires to 
POSCO on March 21, 2002, and to DMC on April 4, 2002. POSCO responded 
on April 5, 2002, and DMC responded on April 19, 2002. On May 8, 2002, 
DMC submitted its sales reconciliation. On June 6, 2002, POSCO 
submitted its sales reconciliation.
    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 31, 2002. 
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of 
Korea: Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the 
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.

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: 
7219.13.0031, 7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, 7219.1300.81, \2\ 
7219.14.0030, 7219.14.0065, 7219.14.0090, 7219.32.0005, 7219.32.0020, 
7219.32.0025, 7219.32.0035, 7219.32.0036, 7219.32.0038, 7219.32.0042, 
7219.32.0044, 7219.33.0005, 7219.33.0020, 7219.33.0025, 7219.33.0035, 
7219.33.0036, 7219.33.0038, 7219.33.0042, 7219.33.0044, 7219.34.0005, 
7219.34.0020, 7219.34.0025, 7219.34.0030, 7219.34.0035, 7219.35.0005, 
7219.35.0015, 7219.35.0030, 7219.35.0035, 7219.90.0010, 7219.90.0020, 
7219.90.0025,

[[Page 51218]]

7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.12.1000, 7220.12.5000, 7220.20.1010, 
7220.20.1015, 7220.20.1060, 7220.20.1080, 7220.20.6005, 7220.20.6010, 
7220.20.6015, 7220.20.6060, 7220.20.6080, 7220.20.7005, 7220.20.7010, 
7220.20.7015, 7220.20.7060, 7220.20.7080, 7220.20.8000, 7220.20.9030, 
7220.20.9060, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7220.90.0060, and 
7220.90.0080. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Due to changes to the HTS numbers in 2001, 7219.13.0030, 
7219.13.0050, 7219.13.0070, and 7219.13.0080 are now 7219.13.0031, 
7219.13.0051, 7219.13.0071, and 7219.13.0081, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 has 
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 this 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.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``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 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.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``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.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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 this order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\6\ 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

[[Page 51219]]

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.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \7\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Samwon 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, 
requested Customs to conduct an inquiry into entries of Samwon's 
subject merchandise into the United States during the POR, and reviewed 
Customs' data. There is no evidence on the record which indicates that 
Samwon 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 Samwon. 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).

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and 
cost information provided by DMC from May 22, 2002, to May 30, 2002, in 
Seoul, Korea. We verified the CEP sales response of DMC's U.S. 
affiliate, Ocean Metal Corporation (``OMC''), from June 14, 2002, to 
June 18, 2002, in City of Industry, CA. We verified POSCO's sales and 
cost information from June 25 to July 5, 2002, at POSCO's plant 
headquarters in Pohang, Korea and their corporate offices in Seoul, 
Korea. We used standard verification procedures, including an 
examination of relevant sales, cost, and financial records, and 
selection of original documentation containing relevant information. 
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, NW., Washington, DC.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether POSCO's and DMC's sales of subject merchandise 
from Korea to the United States were made at less than normal value, we 
compared the constructed export price (``CEP'') 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 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, which were produced and sold by POSCO and 
DMC in the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for 
purposes 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 
29, 2001, antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to 
constructed value (``CV''), as appropriate.

Date of Sale

    It is the Department's practice normally to use the invoice date as 
the date of sale, although we may use a date other than the invoice 
date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects the date 
on which the exporter or producer establishes the material terms of 
sale. See 19 CFR 351.401(i). We have preliminarily determined that the 
of invoice date as the date of sale for respondents Dai Yang and POSCO. 
Consistent with the prior review, for home market sales, we used the 
reported date of the invoice from the Korean manufacturer.
    For U.S. sales, POSCO reported its date of sale to be the earlier 
of the shipment date from Korea or POSCO's invoice date, although these 
were CEP transactions. Additionally, POSCO reported that its sales are 
shipped directly from the factory in Korea to the U.S. customer. 
However, POSCO's U.S. affiliate, Pohang Steel America Corporation 
(``POSAM''), serves as the principal point of contact for the U.S. 
customer. Customers place their orders with POSAM, which then places an 
order with POSCO. Upon confirmation from POSCO, POSAM separately 
invoices the unaffiliated customer in the United States. POSAM is 
solely responsible for collecting payment from the U.S. customer, and 
for paying POSCO for the merchandise. Since POSCO's U.S. sales were 
made ``in the United States'' within the meaning of section 772(b) of 
the Act, we have treated these sales as CEP transactions, consistent 
with AK Steel Corp. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 
2000). Thus, we have determined that the date of sale for these U.S. 
sale is the date of invoice from POSAM to the unaffiliated customer. 
Therefore, we have based date of sale on invoice date from the U.S. 
affiliate, unless that date was subsequent to the date of shipment to 
the unaffiliated customer from Korea, in which case that shipment date 
is the date of sale. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Preliminary Results, 65 FR 
54197, 54201 (September 7, 2000), and see Certain Cold-Rolled and 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 66 FR 3540 (January 
16, 2001).
    Dai Yang reported that the date of sale for its U.S. sales, was the 
invoice date from its U.S. affiliate to the unaffiliated customer.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, export price 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.

[[Page 51220]]

POSCO

    For purposes of this administrative review, POSCO classified all of 
its sales as CEP sales. POSCO identified only one channel of 
distribution for U.S. sales through its wholly owned subsidiary, Pohang 
Steel America Corporation (``POSAM''), to its unaffiliated customer in 
the United States. We based our calculations on CEP, in accordance with 
subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) of the Act.
    We calculated CEP based on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. We made deductions for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of 
export, foreign brokerage and Korean customs clearance fees, 
international freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duty, and U.S. 
brokerage and wharfage expenses (classified as other U.S. 
transportation expenses). Also, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 
of the Act, we deducted packing expenses because packing expenses are 
included in the CEP. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, 
we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses 
(i.e., imputed credit expenses, postage and term credit expenses, and 
letter of credit and remittance expenses) and indirect selling 
expenses, including inventory carrying costs. For POSAM's indirect 
selling expenses, we reduced POSAM's reported interest expenses by the 
amount of the imputed credit expenses reported on POSCO's U.S. sales 
database. Additionally, we added an amount for duty drawback to the 
U.S. price pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance 
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit allocated to 
expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(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 revenue 
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 
markets.
    We made no changes to POSCO's reported CEP sales database as a 
result of verification. See Sales and Cost Verification of Pohang Iron 
and Steel Corporation (``POSCO'') in the Antidumping Administrative 
Review of Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea 
(``POSCO Verification Report'') (July 31, 2002); Analysis for the 
preliminary results of review for stainless steel strip in coils from 
Korea--Pohang Iron & Steel Company (``POSCO'') (``POSCO Prelim Analysis 
Memo'') (July 31, 2002).

DMC

    DMC reported that it made all sales of subject merchandise to the 
United States through its wholly-owned subsidiary in the United States, 
OMC. Consequently, it classified all of its U.S. sales as CEP sales. We 
based our calculations on CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b), 
(c), and (d) of the Act.
    We calculated CEP based on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers 
in the United States. We made adjustments to the starting price for 
billing adjustments, where applicable. We made deductions for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 
included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the plant to 
the port of export, foreign brokerage and Korean customs clearance 
fees, international freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight from 
port to warehouse, U.S. inland freight from warehouse/plant to the 
unaffiliated customer, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. customs 
duty. Also, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
deducted packing expenses because packing expenses are included in the 
CEP. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those 
selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the 
United States, including direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit, 
commissions, warranty expense, banking expenses, and domestic banking 
fees) and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying 
costs. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for duty 
drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance 
with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. We deducted the profit allocated to 
expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(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 revenue 
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 
markets.
    We made corrections to the data for certain variables included in 
the pre-selected sales examined at verification. See Daiyang Metal Co., 
Ltd. Home Market Sales, United States Sales, and Cost of Production 
Verification Report; Antidumping Administrative Review on Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea (July 31, 2002) (``DMC 
Verification Report''); Verification Report of the Administrative 
Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea--United States 
Sales Verification Report of Ocean Metal Corporation (July 31, 2002) 
(``OMC Verification Report''); Analysis for the preliminary results of 
review for stainless steel strip in coils from Korea--Daiyang Metal 
Co., Ltd. (``DMC Prelim Analysis Memo'') (July 31, 2002).

Normal Value

1. Home Market Viability

    For POSCO and DMC, 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 Korea 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 Korea, 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

    POSCO and DMC reported that they each 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

[[Page 51221]]

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 unaffiliated 
party, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were made 
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 POSCO's and 
DMC's affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's length 
test. However, we did not consider the downstream sales from these 
customers to the first unaffiliated customer because DMC's affiliated 
home market customers further manufactured the subject merchandise into 
merchandise outside of the scope of the order. With respect to POSCO, 
the total quantity of sales made through these affiliated parties was 
less than 5 percent of the total quantity of home market sales. 
Therefore, in accord with section 351.403 of the Department's 
regulations, we did not request information on the downstream sales.

3. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis

    Because the Department determined that POSCO and DMC made sales in 
the home market at prices below the cost of producing the subject 
merchandise in the previous administrative review of and therefore 
excluded such sales from normal value, the Department determined that 
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that POSCO and DMC 
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 POSCO and DMC 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 POSCO's and DMC's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market selling, general and administrative expenses 
(``SG&A''), including interest expenses, and packing costs. We relied 
on the COP data submitted by POSCO and DMC in their original and 
supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For the preliminary results 
of review, we revised the COP information submitted by POSCO as 
follows: We reclassified net gains and losses on the valuation and 
disposition of marketable securities as financing expense, and we 
reclassified the reversal of an allowance for doubtful accounts as an 
indirect selling expense. See POSCO Prelim Analysis Memo and POSCO 
Verification Report.
    We made no changes to the COP information provided by DMC to 
conduct the cost test.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
for POSCO and DMC, 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, in substantial 
quantities; and (2) at prices which did not permit 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 billing adjustments, 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 POSCO and DMC. For those sales of subject merchandise for 
which there were no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course 
of trade, we compared 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 
POSCO's and DMC'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 POSCO and DMC 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

POSCO

    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 made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses (i.e., 
inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse, warehousing 
expense, and inland freight from plant/distribution warehouse to 
customer) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit, warranty expense and 
interest revenue, where appropriate in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C). In

[[Page 51222]]

accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs. Also, on certain sales, we added to 
NV an amount for duty drawback. Finally, in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act, where the Department was unable to determine NV 
on the basis of contemporaneous matches in accordance with 
773(1)(B)(i), we based NV on CV.
    We did not make any adjustments to POSCO's reported home market 
sales data in the calculation of NV.

DMC

    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 both affiliated 
and unaffiliated home market customers. Because all of DMC's home 
market sales were made on an ex-factory basis, we made no adjustments 
for inland freight from the plant or distribution warehouse to the 
customer in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit, where appropriate. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs. Finally, in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act, where the Department was unable to determine NV 
on the basis of contemporaneous matches in accordance with 
773(1)(B)(i), we based NV on CV.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we base NV on CV 
if we are unable to find a home market match of identical or similar 
merchandise. For selling expenses, we used the actual weighted-average 
home market direct and indirect selling expenses. Where applicable, we 
make adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act.

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 administrative review, we 
obtained information from POSCO and DMC about the marketing stages 
involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a 
description of the selling activities performed by POSCO and DMC 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 POSCO nor DMC 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.

POSCO

    In the present review, POSCO did not request a LOT adjustment. 
However, because POSCO claims that the adjustment for the function of 
the U.S. operation would result in a U.S. level of trade that is less 
advanced than the home market level of trade, POSCO claims that a CEP 
offset is required. 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 Korean markets, including the selling functions, classes of 
customer, and selling expenses.
    In both the U.S. and home markets, POSCO reported one level of 
trade. See POSCO's October 3, 2001, Section A response, at A-9 through 
A-13. POSCO sold through two channels of distribution in the home 
market: (1) directly from its mill to all customers in the home market: 
end users, domestic trading companies and service centers; and (2) 
POSCO sold a limited quantity of overrun and secondary merchandise 
through the internet. POSCO sold through one channel distribution in 
the U.S. market: through POSAM to unaffiliated trading companies.
    For sales in home market channel one, POSCO performed all sales-
related activities, including arranging for freight and delivery; 
providing computerized accounting and sales systems; market research; 
warranty; sales negotiation; after-sales service; quality control; and 
extending credit. POSCO's home market sales in channel 1 were produced 
to order. The same selling functions were performed in home market 
channel two; however, all internet sales were made from inventory. 
Because these selling functions are similar for both sales channels, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    For all U.S. sales made through POSAM, POSCO determined the price 
and terms of sale and performed all sales-related activities (with the 
exception of extending credit and invoicing the customers). Since all 
sales in the United States are made through a single channel of 
distribution, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the 
U.S. market.
    In comparing POSCO's home market and U.S. market sales, it appears 
that POSCO's offered many of the same selling functions in both 
markets, including: negotiating prices; meeting with customers; 
providing inventory; personnel management and training; technical 
advice; providing computerized accounting and sales

[[Page 51223]]

systems; engineering services; research and development and technical 
programs; procurement services; and quality control. Accordingly, 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. Consequently, we 
preliminarily determine that a LOT adjustment or CEP offset is not 
warranted in this case.

DMC

    In the present review, DMC made no claims that a LOT adjustment was 
appropriate. To determine whether an adjustment is 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.
    In both the U.S. and home markets, DMC reported one level of trade. 
See DMC's October 3, 2001, Section A response, at A-8 through A-11. DMC 
sold through two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) 
Directly from its mill to affiliated and unaffiliated manufacturers; 
and (2) directly from its mill to unaffiliated distributors. DMC sold 
through two channels of distribution in the U.S. market: (1) Through 
OMC to unaffiliated customers in the United States; and (2) through OMC 
for further manufacturing into stainless steel pipe, which is not 
covered by the order.
    For sales in the home market to either end-users or distributors, 
DMC's selling activities consisted of receiving and processing 
customers' orders, arranging freight and delivery for small customers 
and delivery services for customers purchasing large quantities, and 
inventory maintenance for small distributors. Because DMC's selling 
activities did not vary by channels of distribution, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    In the U.S. market, DMC sold all of its merchandise through its's 
U.S. subsidiary, OMC. Consequently, DMC claimed that OMC performed the 
requisite selling activities, such as the negotiation of sales terms, 
maintenance and collection of accounts receivable, evaluation of 
customer credit, importation of subject merchandise and delivery of the 
merchandise to the unaffiliated customer. For the U.S. market, DMC's 
selling functions are limited to freight and delivery arrangements, 
which did not vary by customer type. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. For these CEP 
sales, we determined that fewer and different selling functions were 
performed for CEP sales to OMC than for sales at the home market LOT. 
We found sales at the home market LOT were at a more advanced stage of 
distribution (to end users) compared to the CEP sales.
    We attempted to examine whether the difference in LOTs affects 
price comparability. However, we were unable to quantify the LOT 
adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, as we 
found that there is only one LOT in the home market. Because of this, 
we were unable to calculate a LOT adjustment, as we found the LOT in 
the home market did not match the LOT of the CEP transactions. 
Therefore, because the NV is established at a more advanced level of 
trade than the LOT of the CEP transactions, we adjusted NV under 
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). Because of 
this, we did not calculate a LOT adjustment. Instead, a CEP offset was 
applied to the NV-CEP comparison.

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 administrative 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 Korea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/exporter/reseller                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSCO......................................................         1.01
DMC........................................................         5.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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). Parties 
submitting arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with 
the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of 
the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs and comments must be served on 
interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 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 Section 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

[[Page 51224]]

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 2.49 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 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 31, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-19992 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P