[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62119-62121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-24793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-307-822]


Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Venezuela

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 3, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand or Robert Bolling, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 and (202) 482-3434, 
respectively.

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 (2002).

Final Determination

    We determine that certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products 
from Venezuela are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United 
States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in section 735 
of the Act. The estimated margin of dumping is shown in the 
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    We published in the Federal Register the preliminary determination 
in this investigation on May 9, 2002. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Venezuela, 67 FR 31273 (May 9, 2002) (``Preliminary 
Determination''). Since the publication of the Preliminary 
Determination, the following events have occurred.
    On May 6, 2002, Siderurgica del Orinoco C.A. (``Sidor'') requested 
that the Department correct a ministerial error found in Sidor's 
preliminary determination calculations of the margin. On May 17, 2002, 
the Department determined that, although there was a certain 
ministerial error, it did not meet the definition of a significant 
ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1). As a 
result, at that time we did not make the suggested correction. However, 
we have made the adjustment for the ministerial error in this final 
determination. See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Venezuela: Analysis of 
Allegation of Ministerial Error (``Ministerial Error Memo'') dated May 
17, 2002.
    On May 10, 2002, Sidor submitted a proposed suspension agreement. 
See Suspension Agreement Section below.
    On June 17 through June 28, 2002, the Department conducted a 
verification of Sidor at Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela. On July 31 through 
August 2, 2002, the Department conducted a verification of Siderca 
Corporation in Houston, Texas.
    On August 21, 2002, Sidor submitted its case brief with respect to 
the Department's Preliminary Determination and verifications. On August 
22, 2002, petitioners submitted their case brief with respect to the 
Department's Preliminary Determination and verifications. On August 26, 
2002, petitioners and respondent submitted rebuttal briefs.

Scope of Investigation

    With respect to scope, in the preliminary LTFV determinations in 
all of the cold-rolled steel investigation cases, the Department 
preliminarily excluded certain porcelain enameling steel from the scope 
of these investigations. See Scope Appendix to the Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 67 FR 31181 (May 
9, 2002) (Scope Appendix--Argentina Preliminary LTFV Determination:). 
On June 13, 2002, we issued a preliminary decision on the remaining 75 
scope exclusion requests filed in a number of the on-going cold-rolled 
steel investigations (see the June 13, 2002, memorandum regarding 
``Preliminary Scope Rulings in the Antidumping Investigations on 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the 
Netherlands, New Zealand, the People's Republic of China, the Russian 
Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and 
Venezuela, and in the Countervailing Duty Investigations of Certain 
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, Brazil, France, 
and Korea'' (Preliminary Scope Rulings), which is on file in the 
Department's Central Records Unit (``CRU''), room B-099 of the main 
Department building. We gave parties until June 20, 2002, to comment on 
the preliminary scope rulings, and until June 27, 2002, to submit 
rebuttal comments. We received comments and/or rebuttal comments from 
petitioners and respondents from various countries subject to these 
investigations of cold-rolled steel. In addition, on June 13, 2002, 
North American Metals Company (an interested party in the Japanese 
proceeding) filed a request that the Department issue a ``correction'' 
for an already excluded product. On July 8, 2002, the petitioners 
objected to this request.
    At the request of multiple respondents, the Department held a 
public hearing with respect to the Preliminary Scope Rulings on July 1, 
2002. The Department's final decisions on the scope exclusion requests 
are addressed in the following paragraph.
    For purposes of this investigation, the products covered are 
certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced) flat-rolled carbon-quality steel 
products. A full description of the scope of this investigation is 
contained in ``Appendix I'' attached to the Notice of Correction to 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, 67 FR 52934 (Aug. 14, 
2002). For a complete discussion of the comments received on the 
Preliminary Scope Rulings, see the memorandum regarding ``Issues and 
Decision Memorandum for the Final Scope Rulings in the Antidumping Duty 
Investigations on Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, 
Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the People's Republic of China, 
the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, 
Turkey, and Venezuela, and in the Countervailing Duty Investigations of 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, Brazil, 
France, and Korea,'' dated July 10, 2002, which is on file in the CRU.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 2001, through 
June 30, 2001. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal 
quarters prior to the filing of the petition (i.e., September 2001).

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that: If an interested party 
or any other

[[Page 62120]]

person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the 
deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and 
manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) 
provides such information but the information cannot be verified as 
provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject 
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title. Because the cost of 
production data and constructed value information submitted by Sidor 
could not be verified, and the Department could not use Sidor's home 
market sales data, the Department applied total facts available 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2).
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide the person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate. Further, section 782(i)(1) states that 
Department shall verify all information relied upon in making a final 
determination in an investigation.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the 
Department may draw an inference that is adverse to the interests of 
that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. 
Section 776(b)(4) of the Act states that adverse inferences may be 
based on any other information placed on the record.
    We find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) 
of the Act, the use of facts available for Sidor is appropriate for 
this final determination. Sidor failed to provide a reconciliation of 
the POI cost of manufacture per its books and records to the per-unit 
costs reported to the Department, thereby negating the Department's 
ability to use Sidor's home market sales data. Without this 
reconciliation, we are unable to determine whether Sidor accounted for 
all costs related to the merchandise under investigation. As such, the 
use of facts available in the final determination is warranted pursuant 
to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
    The Department applies adverse facts available ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc No. 103-316, vol. 1, at 
870 (1994) (``SAA''). In this case, Sidor failed to cooperate to the 
best of its ability by not being adequately prepared for verification 
and not being able to reconcile its own cost data.
    In selecting from among the facts available, section 776(b) of the 
Act authorizes the Department to use an inference that is adverse to a 
party if the Department finds that the party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information. See SAA 870. To examine whether the respondent 
``cooperated'' by ``acting to the best of its ability'' under section 
776(b) of the Act, the Department considers, inter alia, the accuracy 
and completeness of submitted information and whether the respondent 
has hindered the calculation of accurate dumping margins. See, e.g., 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808 (October 
16, 1997). In this case, Sidor has hindered the calculation of an 
accurate margin.
    It is the Department's practice to assign the highest rate from any 
segment of a proceeding as total adverse facts available when a 
respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability. See, e.g., 
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Taiwan; Preliminary Results and 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 
5789 (February 7, 2002) (``Consistent with Department practice in cases 
where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and 
in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts 
available we have applied a margin based on the highest margin from 
this or any prior segment of the proceeding.''). Therefore, the 
Department is applying the rate from the Preliminary Determination to 
Sidor for this Final Determination. We are applying the petition rate 
for the All Other's Rate. See All Other's Rate Section below.

All Other's Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated 
weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and 
producers individually investigated are zero or de minimis margins, or 
are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department 
may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated ``all-others'' 
rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. This 
provision contemplates that we weight-average margins other than facts 
available margins to establish the ``all others'' rate. Where the data 
does not permit weight-averaging such rates, the SAA at 873 provides 
that we may use other reasonable methods. Because the petition in this 
case contained only an estimated price-to-price dumping margin, which 
the Department adjusted for purposes of initiation, there are no 
additional estimated margins available with which to create the ``all 
others'' rate. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Welded Large Diameter Line Pipe From Mexico, 67 FR 566, 
567-68 (January 4, 2002).
    Therefore, we are not applying Sidor's adverse rate from the final 
determination to the All Other's Rate, but instead are using the lower 
petition rate as we recognize that nonparticipating parties have no 
culpability for the absence of company-specific information on the 
record and should not receive the adverse facts available rate. See 
Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From 
Argentina, Japan and Thailand, 65 FR 5520 (February 4, 2000).

Analysis of Comments Received

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

Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    We have adjusted the calculation methodology used in the 
Preliminary Determination to correct for a clerical error (see Case 
History section and Ministerial Error Memo) in determining

[[Page 62121]]

the final dumping margin in this proceeding.

Verification

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

Suspension Agreement

    On May 10, 2002, Sidor submitted a proposal for a suspension 
agreement in accordance with the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 
351.208. On June 19, 2002, the Department met with representatives of 
Sidor to discuss the proposed suspension agreement. No agreement was 
concluded.

Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend all entries of 
cold-rolled steel from Venezuela, that are entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after May 9, 2002, the date of 
publication of our preliminary determination. The Customs Service shall 
continue to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to 
the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price 
as shown below. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain 
in effect until further notice. The weighted-average dumping margins 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                   Exporter/manufacturer                        margin
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sidor......................................................        58.95
All Others.................................................        53.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission (``ITC'') of our determination. As our 
final determination is affirmative, the ITC will, within 45 days, 
determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten 
material injury to, the U.S. industry. If the ITC determines that 
material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the 
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be 
refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury does 
exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing 
the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all imports of the 
subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of 
liquidation.

Notification Regarding APO

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 23, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix 1--General Issues

Comment 1: Reliability of Costs
Comment 2: Major Inputs
Comment 3: Depreciation
Comment 4: General and Administrative Expenses (``G&A'')
Comment 5: Financial Expenses
Comment 6: Sidor's Home Market Credit Expenses
Comment 7: Constructed Export Price Offset
Comment 8: Home Market Indirect Export Billing Adjustment
Comment 9: U.S. Inland Trucking Freight Expense
Comment 10: Ministerial Error
Comment 11: Ministerial Error
Comment 12: Computer Code Language

[FR Doc. 02-24793 Filed 10-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P