[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42378-42386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18130]



[[Page 42378]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-831]


Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances in Part: Prestressed Concrete 
Steel Wire Strand From Mexico

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 affirmative preliminary 
determination of critical circumstances in part.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Kemp or Daniel O'Brien at (202) 
482-5346 or (202) 482-1376, 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 Mexico 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 Act). The 
preliminary margin assigned to Cablesa, S.A. de C.V (Cablesa) is based 
on adverse facts available (AFA). The estimated margins of sales at 
LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice. 
In addition, we preliminarily determine that there is a reasonable 
basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to PC strand produced and exported by Cablesa.
    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. Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. (Camesa) 
and Cablesa submitted comments on product coverage on March 19, 2003. 
The petitioners rebutted these comments on March 28, 2003. See Class or 
Kind below.
    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 Camesa and Cablesa 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) (ITC Preliminary Determination).
    On April 4, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping 
questionnaire to Camesa and Cablesa, specifying that the responses to 
Section A and Sections B-D would be due on April 25, and May 12, 2003, 
respectively.\2\ We received responses to Sections A-D of the 
antidumping questionnaire and issued supplementary questionnaires where 
appropriate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \3\ See, also, Facts Available section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 17, 2003, the petitioners alleged that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of PC strand from Mexico. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 732(e) of the Act, on June 18, 2003, 
the Department requested information from Camesa and Cablesa 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 respondents submitted the requested information 
on June 25, 2003. The critical circumstances analysis for the 
preliminary determination is discussed below under Critical 
Circumstances.

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 both Camesa and 
Cablesa. In their requests, Camesa and Cablesa consented to the 
extension of provisional measures to no longer than six months. Since 
this preliminary determination is affirmative, the requests for 
postponement are made by exporters that account for a significant 
proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and there is no 
compelling reason to deny the respondents' requests, 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.

[[Page 42379]]

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 seven producers of PC strand in Mexico. On 
April 3, 2003, counsel for Camesa and Cablesa indicated that, to the 
best of their knowledge, those two firms were the only Mexican 
producers of PC strand that exported to the United States during the 
period of investigation (POI).\4\ The U.S. embassy in Mexico City 
provided information that corroborates this claim. Additionally, in an 
April 2, 2003, submission, Camesa and Cablesa provided the Department 
with their U.S. export quantities of subject merchandise during the 
POI. Based on the imported quantities reported by the U.S. Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection (BCBP), we are satisfied that the record 
supports the conclusion that Camesa and Cablesa are the only Mexican 
producers that exported the subject merchandise 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum from Daniel O'Brien, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, to the File, Re: Telephone Call with Counsel for 
Mexican Producers Aceros Camesa and Cablesa Regarding Investigation 
of Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Mexico, dated April 
3, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Investigation

    The POI is January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002. This period 
corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of 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.

Class or Kind

    On March 19, 2003, the respondents in this investigation requested 
that the Department exclude covered PC strand \5\ from the scope of 
this investigation. In the same letter, the respondents requested that 
in the event that the Department does not exclude covered PC strand 
from the scope, the Department determine that there are two separate 
classes or kinds of merchandise subject to investigation: (1) Uncovered 
PC strand used for pre-tensioning applications and (2) covered PC 
strand used for post-tensioning applications. The petitioners submitted 
a rebuttal to the respondents requests on March 28, 2003. We have 
preliminarily determined that the scope of this investigation properly 
includes covered PC strand. Additionally, we have preliminarily 
determined that covered and uncovered PC strand constitute one class or 
kind of merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Covered PC strand is usually coated with grease and encased 
in plastic covering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Department has the authority to define the scope of an 
investigation, that authority cannot be used to deprive the petitioner 
of relief with respect to products the petitioner clearly and 
explicitly intended to be included in the investigation, unless the 
resulting order would thereby become unadministrable. Therefore, 
without the petitioner's consent, the Department has rarely used its 
authority to narrow the scope of an investigation. See Memorandum from 
Jim Kemp and Salim Bhabhrawala, Import Compliance Specialists, to Holly 
Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Group II, Re: Consideration 
of Scope Exclusion Request and Class or Kind Determination, dated July 
10, 2003 (Scope Exclusion Request and Class or Kind Determination).
    The Mexican respondents argue that covered PC strand should be 
excluded because the petitioners do not manufacture the product. 
However, the statute does not require that the petitioners have to 
produce every type of product that is encompassed by the scope of the 
investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products From 
Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000).
    The Department has the authority to narrow the scope of an 
investigation, but rarely does so except in cases where the petitioner 
makes such a request or the scope as worded creates ambiguities and 
administrability problems. In this case, the petitioners' requested 
scope specifically states that covered PC strand should be included in 
the investigation. Given the clarity of the petitioners' request to 
include covered PC strand within the scope and the apparent absence of 
any difficulties in its inclusion, we find no reason to exclude covered 
PC strand from the scope of this investigation.
    We have also preliminarily determined that there is only one class 
or kind of merchandise for PC strand. Our determination is based on an 
evaluation of the criteria set forth in Diversified Products v. United 
States, 572 F. Supp. 883, 889 (CIT 1983) (Diversified Products), which 
look to differences in: (1) The general physical characteristics of the 
merchandise; (2) the expectations of the ultimate purchaser; (3) the 
ultimate use of the merchandise; (4) the channels of trade in which the 
merchandise moves, and; (5) the manner in which the product is 
advertised or displayed.
    In our analysis of the Diversified Products criteria, we find that 
the physical similarities of covered and uncovered PC strand are much 
greater than the slight change created by the application of grease and 
plastic coating. The defining characteristic of these products 
continues to be the strand and covering the merchandise does not change 
the strand or its chemical or physical properties. Additionally, the 
expectations of the user and the use of the products is generally the 
same. It appears to be common practice in the industry for end-users to 
purchase uncovered PC strand and add covering for post-tension 
applications, creating the same end-use expectations for both products. 
Furthermore, the use of the product is essentially the same for post 
and pre-tensioning applications. Covered and uncovered PC strand is a 
product used in construction designed to ``introduce specified 
compressive forces into concrete to offset, or neutralize, forces that 
occur when the prestressed concrete is subject to load.'' ITC 
Preliminary Determination, 68 FR at 19652; see also Investigations Nos. 
701-TA-432 and 731-TA-1024-1028 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3589, (March 
2003) at 9. Therefore, whether the

[[Page 42380]]

product is covered or not does not change the ultimate use; only the 
process employed to apply the PC strand differs between the two 
products. With regard to channels of trade, we have concluded that end-
use customers purchase both types of PC strand and there is no clear 
division in channels of trade between uncovered and covered PC strand. 
Finally, we note that no information was placed on the record regarding 
the advertising or display of uncovered or covered PC strand.
    Therefore, we find that uncovered and covered PC strand constitute 
the same class or kind of merchandise. For a further discussion on this 
topic, see Scope Exclusion Request and Class or Kind Determination.

Facts Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of AFA 
is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to 
Cablesa.

A. Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information requested by the Department, fails to provide 
such information by the deadline or in the form or manner requested, 
significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information which 
cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) 
and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the 
applicable determination. 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 Department's request, the Department shall 
promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to 
remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Act further 
states that 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.
    In accordance with section 776 of the Act, for the reasons 
explained below, we preliminarily determine that the use of total AFA 
is warranted with respect to Cablesa. The Department received Cablesa's 
incomplete response to section D of the antidumping duty questionnaire 
on May 28, 2003. In that response, Cablesa failed to respond to section 
III (Response Methodology) of the questionnaire. Instead, Cablesa 
stated that it was working diligently to complete its response to that 
section and that it would submit its response as soon as possible.
    Section III of the section D questionnaire instructs the respondent 
to fully explain its cost response methodology, provide reconciliations 
of the cost of sales from its financial statements to the reported 
costs, provide detailed cost build-ups for two models sold in the home 
and U.S. markets, provide a worksheet showing the computation of the 
general and administrative (G&A) expenses rate, and provide a worksheet 
showing the computation of the net financial expense rate. After 
receiving a telephone call from Department officials, on June 5, 2003, 
Cablesa responded to the missing items in part. See Memorandum from 
Salim Bhabhrawala, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, 
Re: Missing Portions of Cablesa's Section D Response, dated June 9, 
2003. On June 11, 2003, the Department issued Cablesa a supplemental 
section D questionnaire requesting that it provide additional 
information or clarification on several issues, as well as the missing 
items from the prior cost response. The response to this supplemental 
questionnaire was due on June 25, 2003. On June 13, 2003 Cablesa 
requested an extension until July 2, 2003. The Department granted an 
extension until June 30, 2003. Cablesa again submitted a wholly 
inadequate response to the supplemental section D questionnaire. The 
deficiencies are detailed below.
    Throughout the course of this investigation, Cablesa has repeatedly 
failed to submit information and data on the record of this proceeding 
in the proper manner as established in the Department's regulations. 
The Department, on numerous occasions, provided Cablesa detailed 
information on how to properly submit the information and data, granted 
Cablesa extensions to reply to requests for information, and provided 
Cablesa an opportunity to explain and correct the deficiencies in its 
responses. However, at no point in the investigation did Cablesa notify 
the Department that it had any difficulties in submitting the 
information. Instead, Cablesa stated that it was working diligently to 
complete its responses.
    Because of the deficiencies in Cablesa's initial, subsequent and 
supplemental section D responses, the Department finds that the cost 
information on the record is so incomplete that it cannot serve as a 
reliable basis for reaching a determination. Specifically, Cablesa 
failed to provide: (1) A reconciliation of the cost of sales in their 
financial statements to the reported costs; (2) detailed cost build-ups 
for the requested models sold in the home and U.S. markets; (3) 
worksheets showing the weight-averaging of the costs for the models 
produced at more than one production facility; (4) an explanation of 
its cost accounting system and how costs were allocated between subject 
and non-subject merchandise; (5) an explanation of its cost response 
methodology; (6) an explanation as to whether the reported costs were 
based on world-wide production quantities and not on any specific 
market; (7) a reconciliation of the production quantities to the sales 
quantities; (8) audited consolidated financial statements together with 
independent auditors report and footnotes; (9) audited unconsolidated 
financial statements together with independent auditors report and 
footnotes; (10) the summary trial balance from which the unconsolidated 
financial statements were prepared; (11) treatment of depreciation 
expense related to idle assets; (12) an explanation of capitalizing the 
G&A expenses in their normal books and records; and (13) the requested 
G&A expenses rate calculation.
    Cablesa failed to provide adequate responses to the Department's 
requests for cost information. Despite the Department's attempts to 
obtain the missing information, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, 
Cablesa failed to rectify its deficiencies. Because the information 
that Cablesa failed to report is critical for purposes of the 
preliminary dumping calculations, the Department must resort to facts 
otherwise available in reaching its preliminary determination, pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act.
    On July 10, 2003, the Department issued its final supplemental 
questionnaire to Cablesa addressing the deficiencies, as detailed 
above, in the company's cost response. Cablesa's response to our 
request for information is due on July 17, 2003.
    Furthermore, our review of Cablesa's U.S. sales response has led us 
to conclude that the reported sales may be inappropriate as the basis 
for CEP. The Department's original questionnaire specifically 
instructed Cablesa to identify any parties with which it is affiliated, 
including affiliations based on control. The questionnaire defines 
situations which may indicate control to

[[Page 42381]]

include close relationship with a supplier, (sub) contractor, lender, 
distributor, exporter or reseller. Evidence currently on the record 
suggests that Cablesa may be affiliated with its sole U.S. customer, 
thereby necessitating that Cablesa provide the downstream sales of that 
customer. We intend to pursue this issue further.

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for Facts Available

    In applying facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act 
provides that 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 the Department's requests for 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 
Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 
30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the 
party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate 
than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 
103-316, at 870 (1994) (SAA). Furthermore, ``{a{time} ffirmative 
evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required 
before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See Antidumping 
Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997).
    We find that the application of an adverse inference in this case 
is appropriate. Cablesa failed to provide critical data regarding its 
costs. Despite the Department's instructions in the original and 
supplemental questionnaires, and the extensions granted, Cablesa made 
no effort to provide any explanation or propose an alternate form of 
submitting the data. Cablesa's actions have rendered the cost response 
useless for purposes of the dumping analysis. This constitutes a 
failure on the part of this company to cooperate ``to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information'' by the Department 
within the meaning of section 776 of the Act. Therefore, the Department 
has preliminarily determined that in selecting from among the facts 
otherwise available, an adverse inference is warranted because Cablesa 
has failed to respond adequately to the Department's request. See 
Notice of Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from 
Turkey, 65 FR 15123 (March 21, 2000).

C. Selection and Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available

    Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a 
request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 
Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. See also 19 CFR 351.308(c); SAA at 829-831. In 
this case, because we are unable to calculate a margin for Cablesa, we 
assign to Cablesa the highest margin alleged for Mexico in the 
petition. See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 9053.
    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition) in using facts otherwise available, it must, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent 
sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that 
``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that the 
secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. 
The Department's regulations state that independent sources used to 
corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price 
lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information 
obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. 
See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA at 870.
    To assess the reliability of the petition margin for the purposes 
of this investigation, to the extent appropriate information was 
available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in 
the petition for both this preliminary determination and during our 
pre-initiation analysis. See Office of AD/CVD Enforcement Initiation 
Checklist, at 15 (February 20, 2003) (Initiation Checklist). Also, as 
discussed below, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in 
the petition to determine the probative value of the margins in the 
petition for use as AFA for purposes of this preliminary determination. 
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we examined the key elements of the export price (EP) and 
normal value (NV) calculations on which the margins in the petition 
were based. See Memorandum from Daniel O'Brien, International Trade 
Compliance Analyst, to the File, Re: Corroboration of Data Contained in 
the Petition for Assigning Facts Available Rate (Corroboration Memo), 
dated July 10, 2003.
1. Corroboration of Export Price
    The petitioners based EP on prices within the POI for sales of PC 
strand manufactured by a Mexican producer and offered for sale directly 
to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. The petitioners averaged the gross 
prices for the individual prices and deducted U.S. import duties, 
freight and insurance to the U.S. port of entry, and U.S. inland 
freight from the average price. The petitioners did not deduct U.S. 
harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees, based on the 
conservative assumption that the Mexican products were shipped over 
land.
    In the petition, the Department was provided with two affidavits 
for U.S. pricing data for Camesa, one for pricing of \1/2\ inch, 270 
grade PC strand delivered to the U.S. port of entry, and the other for 
pricing of \1/2\ inch, 270 grade PC strand delivered to the U.S. 
customer. For purposes of corroborating these price-to-price 
calculations in the petition, we compared this price to Cablesa's U.S. 
sales database submitted on June 18, 2003. Using this data, we noted 
that the prices listed in the affidavits in the petition were 
comparable to the data submitted by Camesa; therefore, we find that the 
petitioners' information for U.S. price continues to have probative 
value. See Corroboration Memo.
2. Corroboration of Normal Value
    With respect to NV, the petitioners provided a home market price 
that was obtained from an invoice for a sale by Camesa in Mexico to an 
unaffiliated customer. The petitioners state that the invoice price 
reported was a delivered price. To calculate the NV, the petitioners 
deducted inland freight from the home market price, and, consistent 
with our statutory EP circumstances-of-sale calculation methodology, 
adjusted the home market price for imputed credit and commissions by 
deducting home market credit expenses from the home market prices and 
adding the U.S. imputed credit and U.S. commission expenses to this 
price.
    We confirmed that the invoice submitted by the petitioners was 
correctly included in Camesa's home market database submitted to the 
Department on June 18, 2003, and note therefore that it has probative 
value. See Corroboration Memo at 2.
    The implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act, at 19 CFR 
351.308(d) states, ``{t{time} he fact that corroboration may not be 
practicable in

[[Page 42382]]

a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from applying an 
adverse inference as appropriate and using the secondary information in 
question.'' Additionally, we note that the SAA at 870 specifically 
states that, where ``corroboration may not be practicable in a given 
circumstance,'' the Department need not ``prove that the facts 
available are the best alternative.'' There are no independent sources 
for the cost data used to calculate the CV in the petition. Where 
relevant information was available from Cablesa's financial statements, 
that information was used in the calculation of CV.
    Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate 
information contained in the petition, and in accordance with 776(c) of 
the Act, we consider the margins in the petition to be corroborated to 
the extent practicable for purposes of this preliminary determination.
    Accordingly, in selecting AFA with respect to Cablesa, we have 
applied the margin rate of 77.20 percent, which is the highest 
estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of initiation. See 
Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 9053.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
produced by the respondents covered by the description in the Scope of 
Investigation section, above, and sold in Mexico 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 Mexico were made in 
the United States at LTFV, we compared the EP and the constructed 
export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the Export Price and 
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 EPs and CEPs. We compared these to weighted-average 
home market prices in Mexico. For Camesa, we compared all U.S. and home 
market sales made during the POI, based on the date of issuance of 
Camesa's purchase orders. We determined this to be the appropriate date 
of sale because the quantity and price of the sales did not change 
after the date of the purchase order.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, EP or 
CEP, as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. 
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the 
producer or exporter 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 722(c) 
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.
    For Camesa, we calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the 
packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United 
States. We found that Camesa made EP sales during the POI. These sales 
are properly classified as EP sales because they were made outside the 
United States by the exporter or producer to unaffiliated customers in 
the United States prior to the date of importation. We note that 
Camesa's affiliated reseller in the United States provided certain 
administrative services pertaining to the reported EP sales. However, 
our analysis of sales documents in the questionnaire response, 
indicated that these services were minor and that the invoicing was 
done by Camesa and payment was made to Camesa. Therefore, since CEP was 
not otherwise warranted based on the facts on the record, we have 
preliminarily concluded that the sales were, in fact, EP. We will 
continue to analyze these sales and this issue for the final 
determination.
    We also found that Camesa made CEP sales during the POI. These 
sales are properly classified as CEP sales because they were made for 
the account of Camesa, by a seller affiliated with Camesa, to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States.
    In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, for both EP and 
CEP sales we made deductions from the starting price for movement 
expenses and export taxes and duties, where appropriate. These included 
inland freight, insurance expenses, brokerage and handling fees, and 
customs duties. Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional 
adjustments to calculate CEP. Accordingly, where appropriate, we 
deducted direct and indirect selling expenses related to commercial 
activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 
Act, where applicable, we made an adjustment for CEP profit.
    Regarding CEP profit and deductions from the starting price, we 
recalculated the indirect selling expenses incurred by Camesa's U.S. 
affiliate, based on the affiliate's 2002 income statement. See 
Memorandum from Jim Kemp, Import Compliance Specialist, to Constance 
Handley, Program Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum for Aceros Camesa 
S.A. de C.V., dated July 10, 2003.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

    Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price 
at which 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 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 Camesa had a viable home market for PC strand. As 
such, Camesa 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 section, 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 Mexico at prices 
below the cost of production (COP). See Initiation Notice, 68 FR 9050. 
As a result, the Department has conducted an investigation to determine 
whether Camesa made home market sales at prices below their respective 
COPs during the POI within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.

[[Page 42383]]

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 G&A expenses, including interest expenses, and packing expenses. 
We relied on the COP data submitted by Camesa in its cost questionnaire 
response, except for an adjustment to the calculation of Camesa's 
interest expense ratio to include net foreign exchange gains and losses 
and exclude monetary position gain. See Memorandum from Margaret Pusey, 
Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, Re: Cost 
of Production Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Determination, dated July 10, 2003.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for Camesa 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, 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 Camesa 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, where applicable in comparison to EP transactions, we made 
adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.
    We made COS adjustments for Camesa's EP transactions by deducting 
direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit 
expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses).

D. 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 
EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. 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 EP or 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 Camesa about the marketing stages involved in the 
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by the respondent for each channel of 
distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and 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 Camesa, 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. We found the following.
    Camesa has reported one channel of distribution in the home market, 
(1) sales to unaffiliated end users and distributors, and three 
channels of distribution in the U.S. market, (2) EP sales to 
unaffiliated end users, (3) CEP sales through an affiliated importer to 
unaffiliated end users, and (4) CEP sales through an affiliated 
importer to unaffiliated resellers. Camesa has reported two customer 
categories in the home market, (1) distributors and (2) direct 
customers. The company performed the same selling functions for all 
home market customers, and, therefore, has only one level of trade in 
the home market. Camesa has reported two customer categories in the 
U.S. market, (1) trading companies and (2) direct customers. In the 
U.S. market all of the EP sales were sold to direct customers. In 
comparing EP sales to home market sales, we found that the selling 
functions performed by Camesa for its different customers and channels 
of distribution were very similar in each market. Therefore, we 
concluded that the EP and home market levels of trade were the same.
    With regard to the U.S. sales through an affiliated importer, which 
were all CEP 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. For home market sales, Camesa provided 
selling functions such as sales processing, credit and collections, 
inventory, and freight. We found that for CEP sales, except for credit 
and collections, Camesa provided the same services with the addition of 
packing and documentation for export. Based on the similarities of 
selling functions provided by Camesa in both markets, we have 
determined that the CEP sales are made at the same level of trade as 
the home market sales. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to make any 
LOT or CEP adjustments.

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, the petitioners alleged that there is a 
reasonable basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist 
with respect to the antidumping investigations of PC strand

[[Page 42384]]

from Mexico. 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 data 
requested by the Department; (3) evidence obtained since the initiation 
of the LTFV investigation (i.e., additional import statistics released 
by the Census Bureau); 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, or 
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 Mexico, 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 
Mexico. For this reason, the Department does not find a history of 
injurious dumping of the subject merchandise from Mexico 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 margins for the respondents are greater than 25 percent, we 
find there is a reasonable basis to impute knowledge of dumping with 
respect to these imports from Mexico.
    In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the 
Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination 
of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present 
material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will 
determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge 
that material injury is likely by reason of dumped imports. See Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 61964 
(November 20, 1997). In this case, the ITC preliminarily found that 
there is material injury to the United States by reason of imports of 
subject merchandise from Brazil, India, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, 
and Thailand. See Determinations and Views of the Commission, USITC 
Publication No. 3589, March 2003. Therefore, we preliminarily find that 
there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Mexican 
importers knew or should have known that dumped imports of PC strand 
from these countries were likely to cause material injury. See 
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 (June 11, 1997); Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the 
Russian Federation, 62 FR 31967 (June 11, 1997); Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Certain Cut-to-Length 
Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR 31958 (June 11, 1997).
    In determining whether there are ``massive imports'' over a 
``relatively short period,'' pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 
Tariff Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the 
subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the 
filing of the petition (i.e., the ``base period'') to a comparable 
period of at least three months following the filing of the petition 
(i.e., the ``comparison period''). However, as stated at 19 CFR 
351.206(i), if the Secretary finds importers, exporters, or producers 
had reason to believe at some time prior to the beginning of the 
proceeding that a proceeding was likely, then the Secretary may 
consider a time period of not less than three months from that earlier 
time. Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during 
the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to 
imports during the base period.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(i), the comparison period must be 
at least three months; however, if we determine that importers, or 
exporters or producers, had reason to believe that a proceeding was 
likely, then the Department may consider a longer period. The 
Department requested and obtained from both Camesa and Cablesa monthly 
shipment data for 2001, 2002, and January through June 2003. In 
addition, we obtained U.S. import data

[[Page 42385]]

for PC strand through April 2003, as reported on the ITC's DataWeb 
site. Due to our application of total AFA to Cablesa, we relied on U.S. 
import data provided by BCBP to conduct our surge analysis. Since this 
import information is only currently available through the end of April 
2003, we have decided that three-month base periods and three-month 
comparison periods are the most appropriate. Therefore, we have 
concluded that the comparison period should be February 2003 to April 
2003, while the base period should be November 2002 to January 2003.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h), we will not consider imports to be 
massive unless imports in the comparison period have increased by at 
least 15 percent over imports in the base period. For Camesa, we found 
the volume of shipments of PC strand increased by less than 15 percent; 
for Cablesa, according to import information obtained from BCBP, we 
found the volume of shipments of PC strand increased by more than 15 
percent. We therefore find that imports of subject merchandise were 
massive in the comparison period for Cablesa, but not for Camesa. See 
Memorandum from Salim Bhabrawla and Carol Henninger, International 
Trade Compliance Analysts, to Constance Handley, Program Manager, Re: 
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire 
Strand from Mexico and Thailand--Preliminary Affirmative and Negative 
Determinations of Critical Circumstances (Critical Circumstances Memo), 
dated July 10, 2003.
    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 companies. Because we are 
determining that critical circumstances did not exist for Camesa, and 
Camesa is the only respondent that has received a margin not based on 
AFA in this investigation, we are concluding that critical 
circumstances did not exist for companies covered by the ``All Others'' 
rate.
    In summary, we find there is a reasonable basis to believe or 
suspect importers had knowledge of dumping and the likelihood of 
material injury with respect to PC strand from Mexico. We further find 
there have been massive imports of PC strand over a relatively short 
period from respondent Cablesa. However, imports from Camesa have been 
found to be not massive over a relatively short period. In addition, we 
find that imports of PC strand have not been massive over a relatively 
short period from companies covered by the ``All-Other'' rate. Given 
the analysis summarized above, and described in more detail in the 
Critical Circumstances Memo, we preliminarily determine critical 
circumstances exist for imports of PC strand produced and exported by 
Cablesa.
    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, upon issuance of 
an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV in the 
investigation with respect to PC strand produced and exported by 
Cablesa, the Department will direct the BCBP to suspend liquidation of 
all entries of PC strand from Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after 90 days prior to the date 
of publication in the Federal Register of our preliminary determination 
in this investigation. BCBP shall require a cash deposit or posting of 
a bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margins reflected in 
the preliminary determinations published in the Federal Register. The 
suspension of liquidation to be issued after our preliminary 
determination will remain in effect until further notice. We will make 
a final determination concerning critical circumstances for all 
producers and exporters of subject merchandise from Mexico when we make 
our final determinations 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 for 
Camesa. Verification of Cablesa's data is contingent upon the 
sufficiency of the company's response to our July 10, 2003, request, 
and any subsequent requests, for additional information.

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 
Mexico, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Additionally, for Cablesa, we are instructing the BCBP to 
suspend liquidation of entries made on or after 90 days prior to the 
publication of this notice. 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 provided below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted-
                                                               average
                     Producer/exporter                         margin
                                                            (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V.................................         57.64
Cablesa S.A. de C.V.......................................         77.20
All Others................................................         57.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Mexico 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.

[[Page 42386]]

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. 03-18130 Filed 7-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P