[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40903-40906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17374]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-791-809]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From South Africa: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products from South Africa in response to 
requests by petitioners, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, National Steel 
Corporation, United States Steel Corporation, and Nucor Corporation. 
The review covers shipments of this merchandise to the United States 
for the period May 3, 2001 through August 31, 2002, by Iscor Ltd. 
(Iscor), Saldanha Steel Ltd. (Saldanha) and Highveld Steel & Vanadium 
Corp. Ltd. (Highveld). Iscor, Saldanha and Highveld informed the 
Department that they would not be participating in the review. We 
preliminarily determine that the application of adverse facts available 
(AFA) is warranted with respect to Iscor, Saldanha and Highveld. For 
our analysis on this issue see the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' 
section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi Blum or Scot Fullerton, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 
at (202) 482-0197 or (202) 482-1386, respectively.

Background

    On September 19, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel 
flat products from South Africa (66 FR 48242). On September 30, 2002, 
in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) 
and section 19 CFR 351.213(b) of the regulations, petitioners, 
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, National Steel Corporation, and United 
States Steel Corporation (collectively, petitioners), requested a 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel 
flat products from South Africa. On September 30, 2002, petitioner, 
Nucor Corporation, also requested a review of this antidumping duty 
order. On October 24, 2002, we published a notice of ``Initiation of 
Antidumping Review.'' See 67 FR 65336. On December 30, 2002, Iscor and 
Saldanha (Iscor/Saldanha) informed the Department that the entity was 
unable to respond to the Department's questionnaire.\1\ On January 21, 
2003, Highveld informed the Department that it was withdrawing its 
participation in the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the final results of the antidumping investigation, the 
Department determined that Iscor and Saldanha were affiliated, and 
should be treated as a single entity for purposes of the 
investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from South Africa, 66 FR 48242 (Sept. 19, 
2001) (LTFV investigation). This was based on information on the 
public record of the contemporaneous countervailing duty 
investigation of hot-rolled products from South Africa that 1) Iscor 
is a 50 percent shareholder in Saldanha, and is in a position to 
exercise control of Saldanha's assets, and 2) both companies produce 
the subject merchandise. In this review, the Department requested 
that, if the circumstances had not changed, the two parties file a 
combined response. Although Iscor/Saldanha did not file any 
response, the December 30, 2002 letter declining to respond to the 
questionnaire was filed jointly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 20, 2003, petitioners submitted timely new factual 
information and a proposed methodology to calculate a new total facts 
available margin for respondents. On March 26, 2003 and May 20, 2003 
respectively, Highveld and Iscor/Saldanha submitted comments in 
response to petitioners' submission. Petitioners submitted rebuttal 
comments on May 7, 2003 and on May 27, 2003, respectively. On June 30, 
2003 Highveld filed a response to petitioners' rebuttal comments, to 
which petitioners responded on July 2, 2003.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Both respondents submitted new factual information in 
several of their submissions. The Department rejected those 
submissions and asked respondents to re-file these respective 
submissions without new factual information. The Department then 
requested that petitioners re-file their comments to remove any 
references to new factual information that respondents had 
submitted.

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

[[Page 40904]]

Scope of the Antidumping Duty Order

    For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 
0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, and 
whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other 
non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively 
superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, 
of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 
10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled 
products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 
exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not 
less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a 
thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this 
review. Specifically included within the scope of this review are 
vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as 
interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, 
and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized 
as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as 
titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, 
added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are 
recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as 
chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for 
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such 
as silicon and aluminum.
    Steel products to be included in the scope of this review, 
regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by 
weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon 
content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements 
listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
    1.80 percent of manganese, or
    2.25 percent of silicon, or
    1.00 percent of copper, or
    0.50 percent of aluminum, or
    1.25 percent of chromium, or
    0.30 percent of cobalt, or
    0.40 percent of lead, or
    1.25 percent of nickel, or
    0.30 percent of tungsten, or
     0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
     0.10 percent of niobium, or
     0.15 percent of vanadium, or
     0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this review unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this review:
    [sbull] Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
    [sbull] Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and 
Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
    [sbull] Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
    [sbull] Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
    [sbull] Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
    [sbull] ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
    [sbull] USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
    [sbull] All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy 
ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
    [sbull] Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result 
of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed 
the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of 
the HTS.
    The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the HTS at 
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 
7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 
7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon 
steel flat products covered by this review, including: vacuum degassed 
fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor 
lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 
7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 
7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 
7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 
7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise 
may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes (as 
of March 1, 2003, renamed the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection), the written description of the merchandise under review is 
dispositive.

Period of Review

    This is the first administrative review following the publication 
of the antidumping duty order. The period of review (POR) is May 3, 
2001 through August 31, 2002.

Application of Facts Available

    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, if necessary 
information is not available on the record, or if an interested party 
or any other 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; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the 
Act, the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of 
the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. In this case, Iscor/Saldanha's and Highveld's stated 
decision not to participate in the review constitutes a refusal to 
provide the information necessary to conduct the Department's 
antidumping analysis, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. 
Moreover, respondents' non-participation significantly impedes the 
review process. See section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. Therefore, the 
Department must resort to facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination. Absent any response on the record from 
respondents, sections 782(d) and (e) do not apply.
    Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that, in selecting from 
among the facts otherwise available, the Department may use an 
inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information (see also the Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA), accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. 
Doc. No. 103-316 at 870). By refusing to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, Iscor/Saldanha and Highveld have failed to cooperate to 
the best of their ability. The Department is unable to perform any 
company-specific analysis or calculate dumping margins,

[[Page 40905]]

if any, for the POR. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 
the Department has determined that an adverse inference is warranted 
with respect to Iscor/Saldanha and Highveld.
    We note that, in selecting an AFA rate, the Department's practice 
has been to assign respondents who fail to cooperate with the 
Department the highest margin determined for any party in the less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review. 
See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401,1411 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 
As AFA, the Department is assigning the rate of 9.28 percent. This was 
the only rate in the notice of initiation of investigation. See 67 FR 
65336. It is also the rate applied in the final determination of the 
investigation of sales at LTFV because we found in the investigation 
that the parties did not cooperate to the best of their ability and we 
applied AFA (see LTFV investigation). It is the rate currently in 
effect for all exporters. We preliminarily determine that it is 
appropriate to continue to apply this rate for purposes of these 
preliminary results.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary 
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the 
Department's disposal. The SAA clarifies that the petition is 
``secondary information,'' and states that ``corroborate'' means to 
determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 
870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. We have previously examined the reliability of 
the 9.28 percent rate and found it to be reliable. See Memorandum from 
Doug Campau to Barbara Tillman, Preliminary Determination of Certain 
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From South Africa: Corroboration 
of Secondary Information, dated April 23, 2001, and placed on the 
record of this review on June 30, 2003. We have re-examined the 
information used as facts available in the investigation and we 
consider it corroborated, and therefore reliable, for purposes of this 
first administrative review. Accordingly, we determine that the 
information from the petition remains the most appropriate basis for 
AFA.
    The Department considers information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as best information available (the predecessor to facts 
available) because the margin was based on another company's 
aberrational business expense that resulted in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been 
judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are 
present here. Moreover, the rate selected is the rate currently 
applicable to all exporters.
    Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate from any previous 
segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., the rate of 9.28 
percent for the determination of sales at LTFV) is in accord with the 
requirement of section 776(c) of the Act that secondary information be 
corroborated (i.e., that it have probative value).

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the 
antidumping margins for Iscor/Saldanha and Highveld, based on total 
adverse facts available, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
     Manufacturer/exporter               Time period          (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iscor/Saldanha.................  05/03/01-08/31/02.........         9.28
Highveld.......................  05/03/01-08/31/02.........         9.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty Assessments and Cash Deposit Requirements

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection (BCBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement 
instructions directly to BCBP within 15 days of publication of the 
final results of review. Furthermore, the following deposit rates will 
be effective with respect to all shipments of certain hot-rolled carbon 
steel flat products from South Africa entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 
For Iscor/Saldanha and Highveld, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit 
rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the 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 subject merchandise; and (4) for all 
other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit 
rate shall be the all other rate established in the LTFV investigation, 
which is 9.28 percent. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within five days after the date of 
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested 
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary 
results. Case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date 
of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to 
arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five 
days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 
(1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
    Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public 
hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. 
Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. 
Parties will be notified of the time and location. The Department will 
publish the final results of this administrative review, including the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief, 
not later than 120 days after publication of these preliminary results, 
unless extended.

[[Page 40906]]

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are issued in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 
19 U.S.C 1677f(i)(1)).

    Dated: July 2, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-17374 Filed 7-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P