[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57574-57580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23080]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-841]


Structural Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review of structural steel beams from the republic of 
korea.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on structural 
steel beams (``SSBs'') from the Republic of Korea in response to a 
request from respondent INI Steel Company (``INI'') (formerly Inchon 
Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.). This review covers imports of subject 
merchandise from INI. The period of review (``POR'') is February 11, 
2000, through July 31, 2001.
    Our preliminary results of review indicate that INI has sold the 
subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') 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 INI's subject merchandise during the POR, in 
accordance with sections 19 CFR 351.106 and 351.212(b) of the 
Department's regulations.
    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: September 11, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Farlander or Robert Bolling, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20230;

[[Page 57575]]

telephone: (202) 482-0182 and (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 August 1, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register 
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on structural steel beams 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 39729 (August 1, 2001). On August 30, 2001, 
respondent INI requested a review in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1). On October 1, 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 49924 
(October 1, 2001).
    On October 4, 2001, the Department issued a questionnaire for this 
review to INI. INI submitted Section A questionnaire responses on 
November 8, 2001. On December 7, 2001, INI submitted its Sections B 
through D questionnaire responses. INI submitted its cost 
reconciliation on December 7, 2001, in the context of the Section D 
response.
    On October 9, 2001, Nucor Corp., Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., TXI-
Chaparral Steel Co. (``Petitioners'') made an entry of appearance.
    On October 12, 2001, the Department granted INI's request that it 
be allowed to report its cost based on fiscal year 2000, and the first 
half of the fiscal year 2001, which is a cost period of January 1, 
2000, through June 30, 2001, fiscal year rather than for the period of 
review, February 11, 2000, through July 31, 2001.
    On February 13, 2002, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire covering INI's Section A though E responses. INI provided 
its supplemental questionnaire response on March 15, 2002.
    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 May 1, 2002, the Department extended the time 
limit for the preliminary results in this review to August 31, 2002. 
However, due to a Federal holiday, the signature date will be Tuesday, 
September 3, 2002. See Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Extension of 
Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 21638 (May 1, 2002).
    The Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire on May 
17, 2002. INI responded on June 14, 2002. On June 26, 2002, INI 
submitted its sales reconciliation. The Department issued its third 
supplemental questionnaire on June 28, 2002. INI responded on July 9, 
2002.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this investigation are doubly-symmetric 
shapes, whether hot-or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or 
finished, having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches 
or more), whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and 
whether or not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. 
These products include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams 
(``W'' shapes), bearing piles (``HP'' shapes), standard beams (``S'' or 
``I'' shapes), and M-shapes.
    All products that meet the physical and metallurgical descriptions 
provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation: structural 
steel beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or 
section height (also known as depth) over 40 inches.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7216.32.0000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 
7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 
7228.70.3040, 7228.70.6000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and 
cost information provided by INI from July 15, 2002, to July 26, 2002, 
in Inchon, Korea. We verified the CEP sales response of INI's U.S. 
affiliate, Hyundai U.S.A., from August 12, 2002, to August 13, 2002, in 
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 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.

Affiliation

    In order to complete the dumping calculation, the Department must 
determine whether respondents sold subject merchandise through 
affiliated companies within the United States. In this review, INI 
reported that it was affiliated with one of the companies to which it 
sold subject merchandise, Hyundai USA, for some portion of the POR. As 
discussed below, the Department preliminarily determines that INI was 
affiliated with Hyundai USA for the entire POR.
    The Hyundai Group chaebol was formed by the late C.Y. Jung, father 
of Mong Koo (``M.K.'') Jung and Mong Hun (``M.H.'') Jung. During the 
POR, 10 members of the Hyundai Group chaebol, including INI and Hyundai 
Motors Company, filed for separation from the Hyundai Group chaebol 
with the Korean Fair Trade Commission. See INI Steel Company Home 
Market Sales, United States Sales, and Cost of Production Verification 
Report; Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Structural Steel 
Beams from Korea (September 3, 2002) (``INI Sales and Cost Verification 
Report''). Eight of the 10 companies filed for separation on August 23, 
2000, and two companies, INI and Sampyo Manufacturing Company, filed 
for separation prior to August 23, 2000. On August 31, 2000, the Korean 
Fair Trade Commission granted separation for the 10 companies after 
meeting certain conditions under the Korean antitrust and fair trade 
laws. See INI Sales and Cost Verification Report. After separation, the 
10 aforementioned companies (including INI) formed another chaebol, 
i.e., the Hyundai Motors Group chaebol, and filed for chaebol status 
with the Korean

[[Page 57576]]

government. INI claims that the Hyundai Motors Group chaebol was 
founded as of August 31, 2000 but because the Korean Fair Trade 
Commission only formally classifies enterprise groups (chaebols) once a 
year, in April, the Korean Government formally recognized the Hyundai 
Motors Group chaebol on April 2, 2001. See INI's March 15, 2002, 
supplemental questionnaire response, at 5.
    In order to determine whether INI and Hyundai USA are affiliated, 
we first examined INI. Specifically, we examined whether M.K. Jung 
exercises any control over INI. At verification, we found that M.K. 
Jung is the chairman of both the lead company in the Hyundai Motors 
Group chaebol, i.e., the Hyundai Motors Company, and the chairman of 
the Hyundai Motors Group chaebol, of which INI is a part. See INI Sales 
and Cost Verification Report. In addition, we have additional record 
evidence that M.K. Jung controls INI. See Analysis for the preliminary 
results of review for structural steel beams from Korea--INI Steel 
Company (``INI'') (September 3, 2002) (``INI Preliminary Analysis 
Memo''). Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that M.K. 
Jung exercises control over INI. (See 19 CFR 102(b) (definition of 
affiliated persons).) However, the Department intends to seek 
additional information related to INI and its affiliation with Hyundai 
USA in order to, inter alia, understand M.K. Jung's control over INI. 
The Department will allow interested parties to comment on this new 
information before making a final determination.
    Next the Department examined Hyundai USA. After the Hyundai Motors 
Group separated from the Hyundai Group chaebol, the Hyundai Group 
chaebol consists of several member companies, including Hyundai 
Corporation, which wholly owns Hyundai USA, and Hyundai Engineering and 
Construction Company, Ltd. At verification, we found that M.H. Jung is 
the chairman of both the Hyundai Group chaebol and Hyundai Engineering 
and Construction Company, Ltd., the principal company in the Hyundai 
Group chaebol. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that M.H. 
Jung controls Hyundai Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Hyundai 
USA. (See 19 CFR 102(b).) However, the Department intends to seek 
additional information related to INI and its affiliation with Hyundai 
USA in order to, inter alia, understand M.H. Jung's control over 
Hyundai USA. The Department will allow interested parties to comment on 
this new information before making a final determination.
    As discussed above, M.K. Jung and M.H. Jung have the same father. 
Under section 771(33)(A) of the Act, the Jung brothers, as half 
brothers, are considered affiliated persons. Additionally, because the 
Department has preliminarily determined that the Jung brothers control 
INI and Hyundai USA, respectively, these companies are also affiliated. 
That is to say, INI and Hyundai USA are under the common control of one 
entity, the Jung brothers. See section 771(33)(F) of the Act. See also 
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. v. United States, et al 127 F. Supp. 207, 
222 (C.I.T. 2000). Accordingly, we are re-classifying all of INI's 
sales through Hyundai USA as CEP sales, even those originally 
classified by INI as EP sales (i.e., post-August 30, 2000 sales), 
because INI and Hyundai USA were affiliated during the entire POR.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether INI's sales of subject merchandise from Korea 
to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared 
the export price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP'') to the 
NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' 
and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. Pursuant to 
section 777A(d)(2), we compared the export prices of individual U.S. 
transactions to the monthly weighted-average normal value of the 
foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course 
of trade at prices above the cost of production (``COP'') as discussed 
in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.

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 INI in 
the home market during the POR, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSB products 
sold in the United States. We have relied on four product 
characteristics to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 
comparison sales of the foreign like product: hot formed or cold 
formed, shape/size (section depth), strength/grade, whether or not 
coated. 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 October 4, 2001, antidumping 
duty questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (``CV''), 
as appropriate.

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, as adjusted under subsection (c). 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, as adjusted under subsections (c) and 
(d). For purposes of this administrative review, INI has classified its 
sales as both EP and CEP.
    INI identified three channels of distribution for U.S. sales. For 
U.S. sales channel one (i.e., INI sales through Hyundai Corporation, 
INI's affiliated trading company in South Korea, to Hyundai USA, a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of Hyundai Corporation located in the United 
States and an affiliate (INI claims affiliation only prior to August 
30, 2000) of INI, and finally, to an unaffiliated customer), INI has 
reported these sales as CEP sales because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated party occurred in the United States. At the time, INI was 
still a member of the Hyundai Group chaebol and clearly affiliated with 
Hyundai USA. Therefore, for these channel one sales, we based our 
calculation on CEP, in accordance with subsections 772(b), (c), and (d) 
of the Act.
    For U.S. sales channel two (i.e., INI sales to Hyundai USA after 
INI disassociated itself from the Hyundai Group), INI classified these 
sales as EP sales; however, as explained in our ``Affiliation'' section 
above, we have found INI affiliated with the Hyundai Corporation and 
its wholly-owned subsidiary Hyundai USA for the entire POR and have 
preliminarily classified these sales as CEP sales. For channel three 
(i.e., INI sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers), we based our 
calculation on EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, 
because the subject merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter 
directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

[[Page 57577]]

States or for export to the United States prior to importation, and CEP 
methodology was not otherwise indicated.
    We calculated EP on the packed, delivered, tax and duty paid price 
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 warehouse, foreign warehousing expenses, foreign inland 
freight from the warehouse to the port of export, foreign wharfage and 
lashing expenses, international freight, marine insurance, other U.S. 
transportation expenses (i.e., U.S. wharfage, brokerage, and other 
charges), and U.S. customs duty. Additionally, we added to the U.S. 
price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act. Where applicable, we made a deduction to gross unit price for 
other discounts. For a further discussion of this issue, see INI 
Preliminary Analysis Memo.
    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 warehouse, 
foreign warehousing expenses, foreign inland freight from the warehouse 
to the port of export, foreign wharfage and lashing expenses, 
international freight, marine insurance, other U.S. transportation 
expenses (i.e., U.S. wharfage, brokerage, and other charges), and U.S. 
customs duty. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for 
duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. Where 
applicable, we made a deduction to gross unit price for other 
discounts. 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, commissions, and bank expenses) and indirect selling 
expenses. In order to eliminate any double-counting, the Department has 
only included those actual interest expenses attributable to subject 
merchandise that exceed imputed credit expense as an indirect selling 
expense. In the instant review because Hyundai USA's actual interest 
expense was greater than the imputed credit expense, we reduced actual 
interest expense by the amount of the imputed credit expenses reported 
on INI's U.S. sales database.
    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 changes to INI's reported EP and CEP sales database as a 
result of verification. See INI Sales and Cost Verification Report; INI 
Preliminary Analysis Memo and Report on the Verification of U.S. Sales 
by Hyundai U.S.A. in the Antidumping Administrative Review of 
Structural Steel Beams from South Korea (September 3, 2002)(``Hyundai 
U.S.A. Sales Verification Report'').

Normal Value

1. Home Market Viability

    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 EP or 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

    INI reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated 
and unaffiliated end users and unaffiliated distributors. 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. 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 INI's affiliated home market customers 
did not pass the arm's length test. We did not consider the downstream 
sales from these customers to the first unaffiliated customer because 
INI's affiliated home market customers further manufactured the subject 
merchandise into merchandise outside of the scope of the order.

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

    Because the Department determined that INI made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the subject merchandise in 
the SSB investigation and, therefore, excluded such sales from normal 
value, the Department determined that there are reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that INI 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 
INI 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 INI's cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home market 
selling, general and

[[Page 57578]]

administrative expenses (``SG&A''), including interest expenses, and 
packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by INI in their 
original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For the 
preliminary results of review, we revised INI's COP information based 
on our verification finding that it had erroneously excluded donations 
from its total general and administrative (``GNA'') ratio. See INI 
Sales and Cost Verification Report.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
for INI, 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 (plus 
interest revenue), less any applicable billing adjustments, movement 
charges, 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 INI. 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 
INI'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 INI 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 instructed INI to make this same adjustment 
described in the COP section above.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    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 
expenses, 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 accordance with section 773(a)(6), we deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. Where applicable, we 
modified the gross unit price based on billing adjustments. 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(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV on CV.
    We did not make any adjustments to INI's reported home market sales 
data in the calculation of NV.

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)(i) of the Act, to the 
extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the 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 INI about the marketing stages involved in 
its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed 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

[[Page 57579]]

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, INI did not request a LOT adjustment for any 
channels but did request a CEP offset on its sales in channel one prior 
to August 30, 2000, the date INI claims to become unaffiliated with 
members of the Hyundai Group chaebol (i.e., Hyundai Corporation and 
Hyundai U.S.A. and other Hyundai Group members). 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.
    In both the U.S. and home markets, INI reported one level of trade. 
See INI's December 7, 2001, Sections B-D response, at B-16 and C-16. 
INI sold through two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) 
Unaffiliated distributors; and (2) affiliated and unaffiliated end-
users. INI claims to have sold through three channels of distribution 
in the U.S. market: (1) INI sales through Hyundai Corporation, INI's 
affiliated trading company in South Korea, to Hyundai U.S.A., a wholly 
owned subsidiary of Hyundai Corporation located in the United States 
and an affiliate of INI (prior to August 30, 2000), and finally, to an 
unaffiliated customer; (2) INI sales to Hyundai U.S.A.; and (3) INI 
sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers. However, because we have 
preliminarily determined that INI is affiliated with Hyundai 
Corporation and Hyundai U.S.A., we have combined channels one and two 
into channel one. Also, we have reclassified channel three as channel 
two.
    For sales in home market channels one and two, INI performed all 
sales-related activities, including arranging for freight and delivery; 
warranty; after-sales service; and extending credit. INI's home market 
sales in channels one and two 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 sales in U.S. channel one (the selling activities of INI and 
Hyundai Corporation combined), the following selling activities are 
performed: (1) After sales services; (2) warranties; (3) arrangement 
for freight and delivery; and (4) credit risk. For sales in U.S. 
channel two (INI's selling activities), the following selling 
activities are performed: (1) After sales service; (2) warranties; (3) 
arrangement for freight and delivery; and (4) credit risk. Because 
these selling functions are the same for both sales channels, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    In comparing INI's home market and U.S. market sales, it appears 
that INI offered many of the same selling functions in both markets, 
including: Arranging for freight and delivery; warranty; after-sales 
service; and extending credit. Accordingly, we 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.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on 
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank in 
accordance section 773A(a) of the Act.

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 February 11, 2000, through July 31, 2001:

                    Structural Steel Beams From Korea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/exporter/reseller                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INI........................................................         1.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 must be limited to issues raised in case briefs and 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 Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will 
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The 
Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to 
the U.S. Customs Service within 15 days of publication of the final 
results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the 
final results of review, we will direct the U.S. Customs Service to 
assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs 
values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's/customer's 
entries during the review period.

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) see 19 CFR 106(c)(1); (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'')

[[Page 57580]]

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 37.21 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: August 20, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-23080 Filed 9-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P