[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46582-46590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-831]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of 
antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel sheet and 
strip in coils from Taiwan.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless 
steel sheet and strip in coils (``SSSS'') from Taiwan in response to 
requests from respondents Yieh United Steel Corporation (``YUSCO'') and 
Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (``Chia Far''), and petitioners 
\1\ who requested a review of YUSCO, Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. 
(``Tung Mung''), Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Company Ltd. (``Ta Chen''), and 
Chia Far and any of their affiliates in accordance with section 351.213 
of the Department's regulations. This review covers imports of subject 
merchandise from YUSCO, Tung Mung, Ta Chen, and Chia Far. The period of 
review (``POR'') is July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation (formerly Armco, 
Inc.) J&L Speciality Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, Butler-
Armco Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the 
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our preliminary results of review indicate that Chia Far and YUSCO 
have sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (``NV'') during 
the POR. Additionally, Tung Mung did not participate in this review. 
Therefore, we are applying an adverse facts available (``AFA'') rate to 
all sales and entries of Tung Mung's subject merchandise during the 
POR. Lastly, we have preliminarily determined to rescind the review 
with respect to Ta Chen, because the evidence on the record indicates 
that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Bureau 
of Customs and Border Protection (``Customs'') to assess antidumping 
duties on entries of YUSCO's, Chia Far's and Tung Mung's merchandise 
during the POR, in accordance with 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (``The Act''), and sections 351.106(c) and 351.212(b) of the 
Department's regulations.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita (Ta Chen, Tung Mung); 
Lilit Astvatsatrian (Chia Far); Peter Mueller (YUSCO); or Bob Bolling, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20230;

[[Page 46583]]

telephone: (202) 482-4243, (202) 482-6412, (202) 482-5811 or (202) 482-
3434, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from 
Taiwan. See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation, 67 FR 44172 (July 1, 2002). On July 30, 2002, YUSCO and 
Chia Far, producers and exporters of subject merchandise during the 
POR, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's 
regulations, requested an administrative review of the antidumping 
order covering the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. On July 
31, 2002, petitioners also requested a review of YUSCO, Tung Mung, Ta 
Chen, and Chia Far and its affiliates. On August 27, 2002, the 
Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of 
administrative review of this order. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002).
    On September 4, 2002, the Department issued questionnaires to 
YUSCO, Tung Mung, Chia Far and Ta Chen. On September 26, 2002, Ta Chen 
certified to the Department that it had no sales, entries or shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and 
requested an exemption from answering the questionnaire. Tung Mung did 
not respond to the Department's questionnaire.
    On October 9 and October 23, 2002, YUSCO submitted its Sections A 
through D questionnaire responses. On December 10, 2002 and January 24, 
2003, we issued supplemental Sections A through D questionnaires to 
YUSCO. On January 9 and February 14, 2003, YUSCO submitted its 
supplemental Sections A through D questionnaire responses. On February 
21 and March 19, 2003, we issued second supplemental Sections A through 
D questionnaires to YUSCO and on March 19 and April 7, 2003, YUSCO 
submitted its second supplemental Sections A through D questionnaire 
responses. On April 7, 2003, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
YUSCO concerning affiliation and on April 16, 2003, YUSCO responded. On 
May 2, 2003, we issued a third supplemental Sections A through C 
questionnaire to YUSCO, and on June 11, 2003, we issued a second 
supplemental questionnaire to YUSCO concerning affiliation. On May 16 
and June 20, 2003, YUSCO submitted its third supplemental Sections A 
through C questionnaire responses, and answered the second supplemental 
questionnaire concerning affiliation. On July 3, 2003 we issued a third 
supplemental questionnaire to YUSCO concerning affiliation, and on July 
10, 2003, YUSCO submitted its response. Finally, on July 18, 2003, we 
issued a fourth supplemental questionnaire to YUSCO concerning 
affiliation and YUSCO submitted its response on July 28, 2003.
    On October 9 and October 18, 2002, Chia Far submitted its Sections 
A through D questionnaire responses. We issued supplemental Sections A 
through D questionnaires to Chia Far on February 13 and February 26, 
2003. On March 3 and March 12, 2003, Chia Far submitted its 
supplemental Sections A through D questionnaire responses. On March 20, 
2003, we issued a second supplemental Sections A through C 
questionnaire to Chia Far and Chia Far responded on March 28, 2003. On 
April 10, 2003, we issued a third supplemental Sections A through D 
questionnaire to Chia Far and Chia Far submitted its response on April 
24, 2003. We issued a fourth supplemental Sections B and D 
questionnaire to Chia Far on May 2, 2003 and Chia Far responded on May 
13, 2003. On June 30, 2003, we issued a fifth supplemental Sections B 
through D questionnaire to Chia Far and Chia Far responded on July 10, 
2003. On July 14, 2003, we issued a sixth supplemental Section B 
questionnaire to Chia Far and Chia Far submitted its response on July 
21, 2003.
    Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may 
extend the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it 
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the 
statutory time limit. The Department has extended the time limit for 
the preliminary results in this review on two separate occasions. See 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Extension of Time 
Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 68 FR 14195 (March 24, 2003); and Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 27782 (May 21, 
2003). The current deadline for the preliminary results in this review 
is July 31, 2003.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise 
descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 
7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81 , 
7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 
7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 
7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 
7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 
7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 
7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 
7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 
7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 
7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 
7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 
7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 
7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 
7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 
7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise 
covered by this order is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of

[[Page 46584]]

not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is 
a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-
rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and 
a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 
percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties, the Department also 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products were 
excluded from the scope of the investigation and the subsequent order. 
These excluded products are described below.
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (``ASTM'') specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Gilphy 36'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (``UNS'') as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 
13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives).\5\ This steel is similar to AISI grade 420, but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 
0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent 
copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold 
under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second excluded 
stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, 
by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 
0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, 
phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 
0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6''.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This list of uses is illustrative and provided for 
descriptive purposes only.
    \6\ ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and ``GIN6'' are the proprietary 
grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Ta Chen certified to the Department that it had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
The Department subsequently contacted Customs and requested them to 
conduct an inquiry into Ta Chen's exports to the United States during 
the POR. The Department

[[Page 46585]]

also reviewed Customs' data available to it. See Memorandum from Laurel 
LaCivita to the File, No Shipment Inquiry for Ta Chen Stainless Steel 
Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Ta Chen''), dated July 16, 2003. There is no evidence 
on the record which indicates that Ta Chen made exports of subject 
merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with section 
351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations and consistent with the 
Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with 
respect to Ta Chen. See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube 
from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998); and Certain 
Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results and Partial Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 
14, 1997).

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information that cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use facts available in reaching the applicable 
determination. In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, 
section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse 
inference if the Department finds that a party has failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information. See also the Statement of Administrative Action to the 
URAA, H. Doc. 103-316 (1994) at 870 (``SAA'') (further discussing the 
application of adverse facts available).
    For the preliminary results of review, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2) of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts 
available is appropriate for Tung Mung, since it did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, 
after the Department did not receive a response to its questionnaire, 
we confirmed that Tung Mung did not intend to participate in this 
review, and that it understood the potential results if it chose not to 
cooperate further in the administration of the review. See Memorandum 
from Laurel LaCivita to the File, Third Administrative Review: 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan, dated July 16, 2003. 
Because Tung Mung failed to provide any information on the record for 
this administrative review, we have no alternative but to apply total 
facts available to Tung Mung.
    As noted above, in selecting facts otherwise available, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party, such as Tung Mung, 
failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply 
with requests for information. Consistent with Department's practice in 
cases where a respondent fails to participate in an administrative 
review, as adverse facts available, we have applied a margin based on 
the highest appropriate margin from this or any prior segment of the 
proceeding. See Elemental Sulphur From Canada: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 11980, 11981 (March 7, 
2000).
    The Department notes that while the highest margin calculated 
during this or any prior segment of the proceeding is 34.95 percent, 
this margin represents a combined rate applied in a channel transaction 
in the investigation of this proceeding based on middleman dumping by 
Ta Chen. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan, 64 FR 30592, 30623 
(June 8, 1999) (``SSSS Investigation''). Where circumstances indicate 
that a particular margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, 
the Department will disregard the margin and determine another, more 
appropriate one as facts available. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 
6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest 
margin for use as adverse facts available because the margin was based 
on another company's uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an 
unusually high margin). Because the middleman dumping calculated margin 
would be inappropriate, given that the record does not indicate that 
any of Tung Mung's exports to the United States during the POR involved 
a middleman, the Department has applied the highest margin from any 
segment of the proceeding for a producer's direct exports to the United 
States, without middleman dumping, which is 21.10 percent.
    The rate of 21.10 percent was applied in the first administrative 
review to another respondent and constitutes secondary information. 
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department, to the extent 
practicable, to corroborate secondary 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. 
As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside 
Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996), to 
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent 
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information 
used. However, there are no independent sources in this case from which 
the Department can derive calculated dumping margins. Therefore, unlike 
other types of information such as input costs or selling expenses, the 
only source of dumping margins is the calculated dumping margins from 
previous administrative determinations.
    The Department corroborated the information used to establish the 
21.10 percent rate in the first administrative review, finding the 
information to be both reliable and relevant. See Stainless Steel Sheet 
and Strip in Coils From Taiwan; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682, 6684 (February 13, 
2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 28. 
Nothing on the record of this instant administrative review calls into 
question the reliability of this rate. Furthermore, with respect to the 
relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider 
information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are 
circumstances that would render a margin not relevant. As discussed 
above, in selecting this margin, the Department considered whether 
middleman dumping was relevant to Tung Mung and declined to use margins 
based on middleman dumping. The Department has determined that there is 
no evidence on the record of this case which would render the 
application of this selected margin inappropriate. Thus, we find that 
the rate of 21.10 percent from the first administrative review is 
sufficiently corroborated for purposes of this administrative review.

Affiliation

    Petitioners argue that the Department should determine that YUSCO 
was affiliated with China Steel Corporation (``CSC'') during the POR. 
CSC is not a respondent in this administrative review, but CSC does 
produce black coil

[[Page 46586]]

which, although not subject merchandise, is used in the production of 
subject merchandise. Petitioners allege that affiliation existed 
through direct and indirect stock ownership; through control by members 
of the boards of directors at YUSCO, Yieh Loong Enterprise Co. Ltd. 
(``YL''), and CSC; and by cross-ownership through various investment 
companies affiliated with I.S. Lin, YUSCO, YL, and CSC. Furthermore, 
CSC which produces hot-rolled steel, was found to be affiliated with, 
and collapsed with, YL, another producer of hot-rolled steel, in Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Taiwan 66 FR 49618 (September 28, 2001) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 1 and 2. 
Petitioners do not argue for collapsing in this case, but do argue that 
the Department find affiliation between YUSCO and CSC. Petitioners 
argue that because YUSCO has not responded fully to the Department's 
questionnaire pertaining to affiliation, it has failed to cooperate to 
the best of its ability. Petitioners therefore argue that the 
Department should assign total adverse facts available to YUSCO.
    At the Department's request, YUSCO submitted information regarding 
CSC's, and YL's corporate structure, ownership, and relationships with 
YUSCO. The information on the record indicates the following: (1) Prior 
to the POR, CSC acquired 40 percent of the outstanding stock of YUSCO's 
affiliate, YL; (2) CSC maintained operational and managerial control 
over YL during the entire POR; \7\ (3) as a result of CSC's acquisition 
of YL's stock, CSC gained an indirect, long-term investment in YUSCO, 
through YL's ownership of 2 percent of YUSCO's outstanding shares; \8\ 
(4) Lien Shuo Investment Co., Ltd. (``Lien Shuo''), an investment 
company owned and controlled by YUSCO's chairman, Mr. I.S. Lin, was the 
chairman of the board at YL for the entire POR; and, (5) YUSCO made 
sales of subject merchandise to an affiliate who then sold the subject 
merchandise to CSC.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See YUSCO's April 16, 2003 Supplemental Questionnaire 
Response at Page 6 and YUSCO's May 16, 2003 Supplemental 
Questionnaire Response at Page 8.
    \8\ See YUSCO's July 10, 2003 Supplemental Questionnaire 
Response at Pages 1-2.
    \9\ See YUSCO's Section October 23, 2002 Section B-D Response at 
Exhibit 5 and at Exhibit 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there is circumstantial information on the record relating 
to relationships between YUSCO, YL, and CSC, that evidence does not 
lead us to definitively conclude that the requisite ``control'' exists 
(or does not exist) for a determination of the existence/nonexistence 
of affiliation of YUSCO and CSC on the record, pursuant to section 
771(33) of the Act. However, even if the Department were to find that 
all of these parties were affiliated, it would have no impact on our 
dumping analysis. A finding of affiliation in this case would only 
affect our calculation of normal value. However, section 351.403(d) of 
the Department's regulations states that the Department will ``not 
normally calculate normal value based on the sale by an affiliated 
party if sales of the foreign like product by an exporter or producer 
to affiliated parties account for less than five percent of the total 
value (or quantity)'' of sales in the home market. The quantity of 
sales between YUSCO and CSC was less than five percent of the total 
quantity of sales in the home market. Therefore, pursuant to section 
351.403(d) of the Department's regulations, even if the Department were 
to determine that YUSCO and CSC were affiliated, based upon the facts 
of the record of this case, it would not calculate normal value based 
on CSC's downstream sales of YUSCO's merchandise sold in the home 
market. Additionally, the Department would not use the sales from 
YUSCO's affiliate to CSC to calculate normal value because they would 
not be matched to any of YUSCO's U.S. sales during this review period. 
Thus, any affiliation between YUSCO and CSC, if any, would not effect 
the outcome of the review and we need not further address it.
    Finally, the Department finds that YUSCO has, to date, responded to 
all of the Department's requests for information pertaining to this 
matter. Therefore, the application of facts available is not warranted.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether respondent's sales of subject merchandise from 
Taiwan to the United States were made at less than normal value, we 
compared the export price (``EP'') and CEP, as appropriate, to the NV, 
as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with 
section 777A of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices 
for NV and compared these to individual EP and CEP transactions.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products covered by the description in the ``Scope of the Review'' 
section of this notice, supra, and sold by YUSCO and Chia Far in the 
home market during the POR to be foreign like product for the purpose 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSSS products sold in 
the United States. We have relied on nine product characteristics to 
match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the 
foreign like product: Grade, hot or cold-rolled, gauge, surface finish, 
metallic coating, non-metallic coating, width, temper, and edge. Where 
there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to 
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar 
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics and reporting 
instructions listed in the September 4, 2002 antidumping duty 
questionnaire and instructions, or to constructed value (``CV''), as 
appropriate.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, EP is the price at 
which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
before the date of importation by the producer or exporter of the 
subject merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for 
exportation to the United States. In accordance with section 772(b) of 
the Act, CEP is the price at which the subject merchandise is first 
sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the 
date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter 
of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated with the producer or 
exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter.

YUSCO

    For purposes of this administrative review, YUSCO classified its 
U.S. sales as EP sales, stating that it sold its SSSS to unaffiliated 
customers in the United States during the POR. Therefore, we are using 
EP as defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the merchandise was 
sold, prior to importation, outside the United States by YUSCO to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We based EP on packed 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions for inland freight (from YUSCO's plant to the port of 
export), international freight, and marine insurance in accordance with 
section 772(c) of the Act. We made no changes or corrections to the 
U.S. sales information reported by YUSCO in the calculation of YUSCO's 
dumping margin.

[[Page 46587]]

Chia Far

    For purposes of this review, Chia Far has classified all of its 
sales as CEP sales. We are using CEP as defined in section 772(a) of 
the Act for sales of subject merchandise that were sold, after 
importation, by Lucky Medsup, Chia Far's affiliated reseller, to an 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We based CEP on the packed 
prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We 
made deductions for movement expenses including: Foreign inland freight 
from the plant to the port of exportation, international freight, 
marine and inland insurance, brokerage and handling, container handling 
charges, harbor construction fees, other U.S. transportation expenses 
and U.S. duty. Additionally, we added to the U.S. price an amount for 
duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling 
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United 
States, including direct selling expenses and indirect selling 
expenses.
    We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under 
sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 
772(f) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we 
computed profit based on total revenues realized on sales in both the 
U.S. and home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. 
We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. 
economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total 
expenses for both the U.S. and home market.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability and whether home market sales 
were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in the ``Price-to-
Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-Constructed Value'' (``CV'') 
Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

1. Home Market Viability

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value (``NV'') (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is greater than or equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared YUSCO's and Chia Far's volume of home market 
sales of the foreign like product to the volume of each of their U.S. 
sales of subject merchandise, we determined that sales in the home 
market provide a viable basis for calculating NV. We therefore based NV 
on home market sales to unaffiliated purchasers made in the usual 
commercial quantities and the oridinary course of trade.
    For NV, we used the prices at which the foreign like product was 
first sold for consumption in Taiwan, in the usual commercial 
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade, and, to the extent 
possible, at the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP as 
appropriate. After testing home market viability and whether home 
market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as noted in 
the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-Constructed Value ( 
``CV'') Price Comparisons'' sections of this notice.

2. Arm's-Length Test

    YUSCO reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated 
and unaffiliated end users and distributors/retailers. Sales to 
affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's length were 
excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at 
arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, indirect 
selling expenses, and packing. Where prices to the affiliated party 
were on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated 
party, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at 
arm's length. See 19 CFR 351.403(c); Antidumping Duties, Countervailing 
Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27295, 27355 (May 19, 1997).\10\ Where no 
affiliated customer ratio could be calculated because identifical 
merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to 
determine that these sales were made at arm's length and, therefore, 
excluded them from our analysis. See e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Argentina, 58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993). Where the exclusion 
of such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate comparison 
product, we made comparisons to the next most similar model. Certain of 
YUSCO's affiliated home market customers did not pass the arm's length 
test. Therefore, we have considered the downstream sales from these 
customers to the first unaffiliated customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Because this review was initiated before November 23, 2002, 
the 99.5 percent test applies to this review. See Antidumping 
Procedures: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 
67 FR 69186, 69197 (November 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the Department determined that YUSCO and Chia Far made 
sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
subject merchandise in the previous administrative review and therefore 
excluded such sales from NV, the Department determined that there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that YUSCO and Chia Far made 
sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise in this administrative review. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 
of the Act. As a result, the Department initiatived a cost of 
production inquiry for both YUSCO and Chia Far.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP based on the sum of YUSCO's and Chia Far's cost of 
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts 
for home market selling, general and administrative expenses 
(``SG&A''), including interest expenses, and packing costs. We relied 
on the COP data submitted by YUSCO in its original and supplemental 
cost questionnaire responses. For the purpose of these preliminary 
results of YUSCO, we made no changes to the COP information provided to 
conduct the cost test.
    However, for the purpose of these preliminary results, we revised 
the COP information submitted by China Far as follows: We revised the 
total cost of manufacturing to reflect the variable and fixed costs of 
further processing after sale. See Analysis Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results of Review for Stainless Steel Strip in Coils From 
Taiwan-Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (July 31, 2003) (``Chia 
Far Preliminary Analysis Memo'').
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
for YUSCO and Chia Far, adjusted where appropriate, to their home 
market sales of the foreign like product as required under section 
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been 
made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home 
market sales made at prices less than the COP, we examined whether such 
sales were made: (1) In substantial quantities within an extended 
period of time; and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. We compared 
the

[[Page 46588]]

COP to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product within an extended 
period of time are at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard 
any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were 
not made in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the extended period were 
at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made 
in ``substantial quantities'' pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) 
within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because we used POR average 
costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We compared the COP for subject merchandise to the reported home 
market prices less any applicable movement charges. Based on this test, 
we disregarded below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product 
were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

YUSCO

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers and those affiliated customer sales which passed the arm's 
length test. We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.We calculated NV based on the home market 
prices to unaffiliated home market customers. Where appropriate, we 
deducted rebates, warranty expenses, and movement expenses (e.g., 
inland freight from plant to customer) in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in 
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we 
deducted home market packing costs and credit expenses and added U.S. 
packing costs, credit expenses, and direct selling expenses (e.g., 
container handling fee, certification fee, fumigation fee, and document 
handling fee). In accordance with the Department's practice, where all 
contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale observation resulted in 
difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost 
of manufacturing (``COM'') of the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.

Chia Far

    For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices 
above the COP, we based NV on the prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the home market. Where appropriate, we deducted movement expenses and 
direct selling expenses, and added U.S. direct selling expenses 
(credit) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 
addition, we made adjustments to Chia Far's reported gross unit price 
to include post-sale processing charges. See Chia Far Preliminary 
Analysis Memo (July 31, 2003).
    We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in 
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. 
Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In 
accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous 
matches to a U.S. sales observation resulted in difference-in-
merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the COM of the U.S. 
product, we based NV on CV.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
if we were unable to find a home market match of identical or similar 
merchandise. We calculated CV based on YUSCO's and Chia Far's cost of 
materials, fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, 
and SG&A, including interest expenses and profit. We calculated the 
COPs included in the calculation of CV as noted above in the 
``Calculation of COP'' section of this notice. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expense and profit on 
the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade for consumption in Taiwan. For selling expenses, we 
used the actual weighted-average home market direct and indirect 
selling expenses. For CV, we made the same adjustments described in the 
COP section above.

Level of Trade

    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 (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV 
LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, 
when NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, 
general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and profit. For EP, the 
LOT is also the level of the starting price sale, which is usually from 
the exporter to the importer. For CEP, it is the level of the 
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP 
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions 
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the customer. 
If the comparison market sales are at a different LOT, and the 
difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of 
consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and 
comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make 
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for 
CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
level and there is no basis for determining whether the differences in 
the levels between NV and CEP sales affects price comparability, we 
adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset 
provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 
(November 19, 1997).
    In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained 
information from YUSCO and Chia Far about the marketing stages involved 
in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of 
the selling activities performed by YUSCO and Chia Far for each channel 
of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP, we considered 
only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction 
of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron 
Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 
2001). Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same in the 
home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the seller 
should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that 
are different for different categories of sales, the functions and 
activities should be dissimilar.

[[Page 46589]]

    In the present review, neither YUSCO nor Chia Far requested a LOT 
adjustment. To determine whether an adjustment was necessary, in 
accordance with the principles discussed above, we examined information 
regarding the distribution systems in both the United States and home 
markets, including the selling functions, classes of customer, and 
selling expenses.

YUSCO

    In the home market (``HM''), YUSCO reported one level of trade. See 
October 23, 2002 Questionnaire Response from YUSCO, at B-27. YUSCO sold 
through one channel of distribution in the HM. For these HM customers, 
YUSCO provided the following selling functions: inland freight, 
warranty services, and technical advice. Because there is only one 
sales channel involving similar functions for all sales, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    For the U.S. market, YUSCO reported one level of trade. See October 
9, 2002 Questionnaire Response from YUSCO, at A-11. YUSCO sold through 
one channel of distribution in the U.S. market: to unaffiliated local 
customers. For U.S. sales, YUSCO provided the following selling 
functions: Arranging freight and delivery; invoicing; and packing. 
YUSCO did not incur any expenses in the United States for its U.S. 
sales. Because there is only one sales channel in the United States, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the United States.
    Based on our analysis of the selling functions performed for sales 
in the HM and U.S. market, we preliminarily determine that the sales in 
the HM and U.S. market were made at the same LOT. Despite the existence 
of certain additional selling functions (i.e., general consultation of 
technical advice and warranty services) performed by YUSCO for its HM 
sales, no significant difference exists in the selling functions 
performed in the HM and U.S. market. Therefore, a LOT adjustment is not 
warranted.

Chia Far

    For its home market sales, Chia Far reported one channel of 
distribution, direct sales from inventory, and two customer categories, 
unaffiliated end users and unaffiliated distributors. See Section A 
Questionnaire Response from Chia Far at Exhibit A-5, dated October 9, 
2002 (``AQR''). For HM sales to both distributors and end-users, Chia 
Far performed many of the same major selling functions, including 
after-sale inventory maintenance, technical advice, warranty services, 
freight and delivery arrangement, after-sale processing and packing. 
See Supplemental Questionnaire Response from Chia Far at Exhibit A-24, 
dated March 3, 2003 (``SQR''). Therefore, based on Chia Far's selling 
functions performed for each type of customer, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the home market.
    For its U.S. sales, Chia Far reported one channel of distribution: 
CEP sales made to order; and one customer category: Chia Far sold 
through Lucky Medsup, an affiliated U.S. company, which then sold to 
unaffiliated distributors in the United States. See AQR at page 2. We 
examined the claimed selling functions performed by Chia Far for all of 
its U.S. sales. Chia Far provided the same level of the following 
services for its sales made to Lucky Medsup (CEP sales) in the United 
States as its home market sales: After-sale inventory maintenance, 
technical advice, warranty services, freight and delivery arrangement, 
after-sale processing and packing. See SQR at Exhibit A-24.
    In order to determine whether NV was established at a different LOT 
than CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chains of distribution between Chia Far and its 
home market customers. We compared the selling functions performed for 
home market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP 
transaction, after deductions for economic activities occurring in the 
United States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, to determine if 
the home market level of trade constituted a different level of trade 
than the CEP level of trade. Chia Far did not request a CEP offset. 
Nonetheless, in accordance with the principles discussed above, we 
examined information regarding the distribution systems in both the 
United States and Taiwan markets, including the selling functions, 
classes of customer, and selling expenses to determine whether a CEP 
offset was necessary. For CEP sales, Chia Far provided many of the same 
selling functions and expenses for its sale to its affiliated U.S. 
reseller Lucky Medsup as it provided for its home market sales, 
including after-sale inventory maintenance, technical advice, warranty 
services, freight and delivery arrangement, after-sale processing and 
packing. Based on our analysis of the channels of distribution and 
selling functions performed for sales in the home market and CEP sales 
in the U.S. market, we preliminarily find that there is not a 
significant difference in the selling functions performed in the home 
market and the U.S. market for CEP sales. Thus, we find that Chia Far's 
NV and CEP sales were made at the same LOT, and no LOT adjustment or 
CEP offset need be granted.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the 
exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified 
by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with Section 773A(a) of the 
Act.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 
2001 through June 30, 2002:

          Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
               Manufacturer/exporter/reseller                 (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YUSCO......................................................         1.95
Chia Far...................................................         0.64
Tung Mung..................................................        21.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to this 
proceeding in accordance with section 351.224(b) of the Department's 
regulations. An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of publication of these preliminary results. See section 351.310(c) of 
the Department's regulations. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 
37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results of review. See section 351.309(c)(ii) of the 
Department's regulations. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 
comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be 
filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication. See section 
351.309(d) of the Department's regulations. Further, we would 
appreciate it if parties submitting written comments also provide the 
Department with an additional copy of those comments on diskette. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results, pursuant to 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

[[Page 46590]]

Assessment

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

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of the subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after the publication date of these final results of administrative 
review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for each of the reviewed companies will be the rate listed 
in the final results of review (except that if the rate for a 
particular product is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash 
deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original less than fair value (``LTFV'') 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be the ``all others'' rate 
of 21.10 percent, which is the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under section CFR 351.402(f)(2) of the 
Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations, 
that continues to govern business proprietary information in this 
segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 31, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-20049 Filed 8-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P