[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42373-42377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18129]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-820]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Prestressed Concrete Steel 
Wire Strand From Thailand

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair 
value, postponement of final determination, and negative preliminary 
determination of critical circumstances.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Henninger or Amber Musser at 
(202) 482-3003 or (202) 482-1777, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement 
Group II Office 5, Import Administration, Room 1870, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that prestressed concrete steel wire 
strand (PC strand) from Thailand is being sold, or is likely to be 
sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided 
in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The estimated 
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation 
section of this notice. In addition, we preliminarily determine that 
critical circumstances do not exist with respect to PC strand produced 
and exported by the respondent in this investigation as well as all 
other producers/exporters.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary 
determination. We will make our final determination not later than 135 
days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in 
the Federal Register.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on February 20, 2003.\1\ See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Prestressed 
Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, the Republic of Korea, 
Mexico, and Thailand, 68 FR 9050 (February 27, 2003) (Initiation 
Notice). Since the initiation of the investigation, the following 
events have occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners in this investigation are American Spring 
Wire Corp., Insteel Wire Products Company, and Sumiden Wire Products 
Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) set aside a period for 
all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See 
Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 9050. No comments were received from 
interested parties in this investigation.
    The Department issued a letter on March 7, 2003, to interested 
parties in all of the concurrent PC strand antidumping investigations, 
providing an opportunity to comment on the Department's proposed model 
match characteristics and its hierarchy of characteristics. The 
petitioners submitted comments on March 18 and 20, 2003. The Department 
also received comments on model matching from respondents in the 
concurrent investigation involving Mexico on March 18, 2003. These 
comments were taken into consideration by the Department in developing 
the model matching characteristics and hierarchy for all of the PC 
strand antidumping investigations.
    On March 17, 2003, the United States International Trade Commission 
(ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication 
that imports of the products subject to this investigation are 
materially injuring an industry in the United States producing the 
domestic like product. See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From 
Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, 68 FR 13952 (March 21, 
2003).
    On April 4, 2003 the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Siam Industrial Wire Co., Ltd. (SIW).\2\ We received 
responses to sections A-D of the antidumping questionnaire and

[[Page 42374]]

issued supplementary questionnaires where appropriate. On June 17, 
2003, the petitioners alleged that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of PC strand from Thailand. Accordingly, pursuant to 
section 732(e) of the Act, on June 18, 2003, the Department requested 
information from SIW regarding monthly shipments of PC strand to the 
United States during the period January 2000 to July 2003. We 
subsequently shortened this reporting period by one year. The 
respondent submitted the requested information on June 25, 2003. The 
critical circumstances analysis for the preliminary determination is 
discussed below under Critical Circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales or, if the home 
market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country 
market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market 
economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. 
Section D requests information on the cost of production of the 
foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise 
under investigation. Section E requests information on further 
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional 
Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination 
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the 
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement 
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of 
exports of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR 
351.210(e)(2) the Department requires that exporters requesting 
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension 
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act 
from a four-month period until not more than six months. We received a 
request to postpone the final determination from respondent, SIW. In 
its request, SIW consented to the extension of provisional measures to 
no longer than six months. Since this preliminary determination is 
affirmative, the request for postponement is made by an exporter that 
accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise, and there is no compelling reason to deny the respondent's 
request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final 
determination until the 135th day after the date of publication of this 
preliminary determination in the Federal Register and have extended 
provisional measures to no longer than six months.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the 
subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known 
producer/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Act permits the Department to investigate either: (1) A sample of 
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid, 
based on the information available at the time of selection; or (2) 
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the 
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the petition, 
the petitioners identified six producers of PC strand in Thailand. The 
data on the record indicates that SIW is the only producer of the 
subject merchandise in Thailand that exports to the United States. See 
Memorandum from Daniel O'Brien, International Trade Compliance Analyst, 
to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, Re: Selection of Respondents, 
dated April 4, 2003.

Period of Investigation

    The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2002, through 
December 31, 2002. This period corresponds to the four most recent 
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., 
January 2003) involving imports from a market economy, and is in 
accordance with our regulations. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, PC strand is steel strand 
produced from wire of non-stainless, non-galvanized steel, which is 
suitable for use in prestressed concrete (both pretensioned and post-
tensioned) applications. The product definition encompasses covered and 
uncovered strand and all types, grades, and diameters of PC strand.
    The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under 
subheadings 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written 
description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of 
Investigation section, above, and sold in Thailand during the POI, are 
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining 
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on four 
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-
market sales of the foreign like product: diameter, covering/coating, 
grade, and type. 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 listed above.

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of PC strand from Thailand were made in 
the United States at LTFV, we compared the constructed export price 
(CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described in the Constructed Export 
Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average 
CEPs. We compared these to weighted-average home market prices in 
Thailand. See Constructed Export Price, section below.
    For the price to the United States, we used CEP, as defined in 
section 772(b) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the 
price at which the subject merchandise is first 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 772(c) and (d) of 
the Act.

Constructed Export Price

    For SIW, we calculated CEP based on the packed prices charged to 
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We calculated a 
CEP for SIW's sales, all of which were made by an affiliated reseller 
in the United States prior to the date of importation by or for the 
account of the producer.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions 
from the starting price for movement expenses. These include inland 
freight, international freight, foreign brokerage and handling, U.S. 
warehousing expenses, U.S. duties, and U.S. freight forwarding 
expenses. We also added duty drawback, in accordance with section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to 
calculate CEP. Accordingly, we deducted from the starting price those 
selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise 
in the United States, including commission and other direct selling 
expenses (credit and warranty expenses) and indirect selling expenses 
related to commercial activity in the United States and added an amount 
for interest revenue. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit, 
in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which

[[Page 42375]]

the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the 
merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is 
inappropriate), that the time of the sales reasonably corresponds to 
the time of the sale used to determine export price (EP) or CEP, and 
that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper 
comparison with the EP or CEP. The statute contemplates that quantities 
(or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less 
than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the 
subject merchandise to the United States.
    We found that SIW had a viable home market for PC strand. As such, 
the respondent submitted home market sales data for purposes of the 
calculation of NV.
    In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation 
of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices and Calculation of Normal 
Value Based on Constructed Value sections below.

B. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on allegations contained in the petition, and in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect that PC strand sales were made in Thailand at prices 
below the cost of production (COP). See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 
9050. As a result, the Department has conducted an investigation to 
determine whether SIW made home market sales at prices below their 
respective COPs during the POI within the meaning of section 773(b) of 
the Act. We conducted the COP analysis described below.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and 
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home 
market general and administrative (G&A) expenses, including interest 
expenses and packing expenses.
    We relied on the COP information submitted by SIW in its cost 
questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments:
    a. We disallowed SIW's claimed labor and overhead adjustment 
factors.
    b. We adjusted SIW's financial expense and G&A ratios in accordance 
with the Department's change in the treatment of foreign exchange gains 
and losses.
    c. We adjusted SIW's G&A ratio to exclude gain on forward hedging 
and gain on stock valuation.
    See Memorandum from James Balog, Accountant, to Neal Halper, 
Director, Office of Accounting, Re: Cost of Production Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination, dated July 10, 2003.
    SIW departed from its normal accounting records in allocating labor 
and overhead costs to specific dimensions of PC strand products 
produced. In departing from its normal books and records, SIW claimed 
that it relied on engineering information to determine adjustment 
ratios. In our supplemental questionnaire issued on June 13, 2003, we 
requested that SIW provide supporting information for the engineering 
factors used. However, SIW failed to provide adequate support and 
explanation for the derivation of these adjustment factors. As such, 
for the preliminary determination, we did not rely on the production 
engineering information used by SIW to adjust the standard labor and 
overhead costs maintained in its normal books and records and instead, 
relied on facts otherwise available. Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (D) of 
the Act provide that if an interested party withholds information that 
has been requested, or provides information which cannot be verified, 
the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the 
Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination. Pursuant to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act the 
Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all 
of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted 
by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) 
the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    When asked to submit additional information to support its 
adjustments, SIW failed to adequately do so in its June 27, 2003, 
supplemental section D response. We believe the information provided to 
support SIW's adjustments was incomplete and cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching a determination. As facts otherwise available, we 
relied on the labor and overhead cost allocations as maintained in its 
normal books and records, unadjusted. On July 10, 2003, we issued a 
second supplemental D questionnaire giving SIW another opportunity to 
provide the requested information. The due date for submission of this 
information is July 17, 2003.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for SIW to its home-
market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under 
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a 
period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices 
were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time.
    On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, 
rebates, billing adjustments, and direct and indirect selling expenses 
(which were also deducted from COP).
3. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, which provides that sales 
made below COP may be disregarded only if, among other things, they are 
made in ``substantial quantities'' (i.e., 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product), we did not disregard any below-
cost sales because we determined that the below-cost sales were not 
made in ``substantial quantities.'' As this was the case for all 
products sold in the home market, we did not disregard any sales as 
below-cost.

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices

    We determined NV for the respondent company as follows. We made 
adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market 
movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for 
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act by deducting billing adjustments, 
discounts, rebates, and direct selling expenses incurred for home 
market sales (credit expenses).

D. Arm's-Length Sales

    SIW reported sales of the foreign like product to an affiliated 
end-user customer and an affiliated reseller. To test whether these 
sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where 
possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and 
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling 
expenses, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on 
average, between 98 and 102 percent of the price to unaffiliated 
parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at 
arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings:

[[Page 42376]]

Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 
(November 15, 2002). SIW's sales to its affiliated end-user customer 
did not fall within that range and were excluded from our analysis. 
SIW's sales to its affiliated reseller fell within that range, and so 
for the purposes of the preliminary determination, we have included 
SIW's sales to its affiliated reseller in the determination of NV. 
However, we are continuing to review SIW's reporting of its home market 
sales to its affiliated reseller. On July 10, 2003, we issued a second 
supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information regarding 
these sales. The due date for submission of this information is July 
17, 2003.

E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    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 as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV level of 
trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For 
CEP transactions, it is the level of the constructed sale from the 
exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade 
than the CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process 
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales 
are at a different level of trade 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 level of trade of the export transaction, we make a 
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    In implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained 
information from SIW about the marketing stages involved for the 
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of 
distribution. In identifying levels of trade for home market sales we 
considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before 
any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses 
pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
    In conducting our level-of-trade analysis for the respondent, we 
examined the specific types of customers, the channels of distribution, 
and the selling practices of the respondent. Generally, if the reported 
levels of trade are the same, 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 may be dissimilar. The following is a 
discussion of our findings.
    SIW has two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) Direct 
sales to end customers, and (2) sales to an affiliated reseller. SIW's 
selling functions, such as engineering services, advertising, packing, 
and technical assistance, are identical for both channels of 
distribution in the home market. Therefore, sales through both of these 
channels are made at the same level of trade (LOT 0). In the U.S. 
market, SIW has two channels of distribution: (1) Direct sales, and (2) 
inventory sales. SIW's selling functions, such as advertising, packing, 
and freight and delivery, are identical for these two channels of 
distribution. Therefore, all of SIW's U.S. sales are CEP sales made at 
the same level of trade (LOT 1).
    With regard to the U.S. sales, we considered only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit covered in section 772(d) of the Act. After we deducted the 
expenses and profit covered in section 772(d), we determined that SIW 
performs more selling functions for sales made in the home market, than 
for sales made to its U.S. affiliate, Cementhai SCT USA. In the home 
market SIW provides additional selling functions, such as engineering 
services and technical assistance, processing rebates and cash 
discounts, performing sales forecasting, strategic planning and 
marketing research, and employing direct sales and marketing personnel.
    There is only one level of trade in the home market and we have no 
other appropriate information on which to determine if there is a 
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV 
is based and comparison market sales at the level of trade of the 
export transactions. As a result, we are granting a CEP offset pursuant 
to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates 
of the U.S. sale, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the 
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).

Critical Circumstances

    On June 17, 2003, petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect 
to the antidumping investigations of PC strand from Thailand. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because petitioners submitted 
critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the 
scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must 
issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations not later than 
the date of the preliminary determination.
    Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department, upon 
receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will 
determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 
that: (A)(i) There is a history of dumping and material injury by 
reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the 
subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, 
the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the 
exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair 
value and there was likely to be material injury by reason of such 
sales, and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period.
    According to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1), in determining whether imports 
of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' the Department 
normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii) 
seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted 
for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that 
``unless the imports during a ``relatively short period'' have 
increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately 
preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not 
consider the imports massive.''
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(i) the Department defines 
``relatively short period'' as generally the period beginning on the 
date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and 
ending at least three months later. This section further provides that, 
if the Department finds that importers, exporters or producers had 
reason to believe at some time prior to the filing of the petition that 
a proceeding was likely, then the Department may consider a period of 
not less than three months from that earlier time.
    In determining whether the above statutory criteria have been 
satisfied, we examined: (1) The evidence presented in the petitioners' 
submission of June 17, 2003; (2) exporter-specific shipment

[[Page 42377]]

data requested by the Department; (3) import data available through the 
ITC's DataWeb Web site; and (4) the ITC preliminary injury 
determination.
    To determine whether a history of dumping and material injury 
exists, the Department generally considers current or previous 
antidumping duty orders on the subject merchandise from the country in 
question in the United States and current orders in any other country. 
The Department will normally not consider the initiation of a case, nor 
a preliminary or final determination of sales at LTFV in the absence of 
an affirmative finding of material injury by the ITC, as indicative of 
a history sufficient to satisfy this criterion. See Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). With 
regard to imports of PC strand from Thailand, the petitioners make no 
specific mention of a history of dumping. We are not aware of any 
antidumping order in the United States or elsewhere on PC strand from 
Thailand. For this reason, the Department does not find a history of 
injurious dumping of the subject merchandise from Thailand pursuant to 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling PC strand at LTFV, the Department must rely on the facts 
before it at the time the determination is made. The Department 
normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for EP sales and 15 
percent or more for CEP sales sufficient to impute knowledge of 
dumping. See e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's 
Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997). The Department 
generally bases its decision, with respect to knowledge, on the margins 
calculated in the preliminary determination. Because the preliminary 
dumping margin for the respondent is less than 15 percent, we find 
there is no reasonable basis to impute knowledge of dumping with 
respect to these imports from Thailand.
    It is also the Department's practice to conduct its critical 
circumstances analysis of companies in the ``all others'' category 
based on the experience of the investigated company. Because we are 
determining that critical circumstances do not exist for SIW in this 
investigation, we are concluding that critical circumstances do not 
exist for companies covered by the ``all others'' rate.
    Accordingly, we find that critical circumstances do not exist for 
imports of PC strand from Thailand. We will make a final determination 
concerning critical circumstances for all producers and exporters of 
subject merchandise from Thailand when we make our final determination 
in this investigation, which will be 135 days after the date of 
publication of the preliminary determination.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify 
all information relied upon in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing 
the BCBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of PC strand from 
Thailand, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. We are also instructing the BCBP to require a cash 
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping 
margin as indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending 
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                     Producer/exporter                         margin
                                                            (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam Industrial Wire Co., Ltd.............................         11.52
All Others................................................         11.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties in this 
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the 
final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will 
determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this 
preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination 
whether imports of PC strand from Thailand are materially injuring, or 
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs on the later 
of 50 days after the date of publication of this notice or one week 
after the issuance of the verification reports. See 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to 
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days 
after the deadline for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an 
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to 
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages 
total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting 
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the 
public version of such briefs on diskette.
    In accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public 
hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a request 
for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days 
after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties 
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing 
48 hours before the scheduled date.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this 
notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and 
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the 
issues to be discussed. At the hearing, oral presentations will be 
limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). The 
Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days 
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 10, 2003.
Jeffrey May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-18129 Filed 7-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P