[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19390-19399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8377]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-812]


Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination

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

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas (Guven) at (202) 482-0651; 
Timothy Finn or Drew Jackson (MMZ) at (202) 482-0065, and (202) 482-
4406, respectively; and Mark Manning (Ozborsan) at (202) 482-5253, AD/
CVD Enforcement Office IV, Group II, 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

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily 
determines that light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from 
Turkey 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 estimated margins of sales at 
LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

    On September 9, 2003, the Department received a petition for the 
imposition of antidumping duties on LWRPT from Mexico and Turkey, filed 
in proper form by California Steel and Tube, Hannibal Industries, Inc., 
Leavitt Tube Company, LLC, Maruichi American Corporation, Northwest 
Pipe Company, Searing Industries, Inc., Vest

[[Page 19391]]

Inc., and Western Tube and Conduit Corporation (collectively, the 
petitioners). See Letter from petitioners to Secretary Evans of the 
Department and Secretary Abbott of the U.S. International Trade 
Commission (ITC), ``Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico and Turkey,'' dated 
September 9, 2003 (Petition). The Department initiated the antidumping 
investigation of LWRPT from Turkey on September 29, 2003. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe 
and Tube from Mexico and Turkey, 68 FR 57667 (October 6, 2003) 
(Initiation Notice). Since the initiation of this investigation, the 
following events have occurred.
    On October 14 and 15, 2003, the Department issued a shortened 
version of section A \1\ of the antidumping questionnaire to eighteen 
pipe and tube producers in Turkey, in which each company was asked to 
provide the quantity and value of its shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United States during the period of investigation (POI). The 
Department received responses from these companies during the period 
October 24, 2003 through November 10, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation, and the manner in which it 
sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a 
complete listing of all of the company's home market sales of 
foreign like product or, if the home market is not viable, of sales 
of the foreign like product 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 the 
company's U.S. sales of subject merchandise. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 17, 2003, the Department issued to interested parties a 
set of proposed physical product characteristics that it intends to use 
to make its fair value comparisons. The Department received comments on 
its proposed physical product characteristics from MMZ Onur Boru Profil 
Uretim San. Ve. Tic A.S. (MMZ) and Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi A.S. 
(Noksel) on October 28, 2003. The Department received rebuttal comments 
from the petitioners and Yucel Boru Ve Profil A.S. (Yucel Boru) on 
November 4, 2003.
    On October 24, 2003, the ITC preliminarily determined that there is 
a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is 
materially injured by reason of imports of LWRPT from Mexico and Turkey 
that are alleged to be sold in the United States at LTFV. See Light-
Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico and Turkey, 68 FR 61829 
(October 30, 2003).
    On November 14, 2003, the Department selected Guven Boru Ve. Profil 
San. Ve. Tic. Ltd. Sti. (Guven), MMZ, Ozborsan Boru San. Ve. Tic. 
(Ozborsan) (collectively, respondents), as mandatory respondents in 
this investigation. See Memorandum from Mark Manning, Senior Import 
Compliance Specialist, to Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, 
``Selection of Respondents for the Antidumping Investigation of Light-
Walled Rectangular (LWR) Pipe and Tube from Turkey,'' dated November 
14, 2003, (Respondent Selection Memo).
    On November 21, 2003, the Department issued sections A-E of its 
antidumping questionnaire to the respondents, which included the 
Department's final physical product characteristics to be used to make 
fair value comparisons. Section D of the questionnaire included special 
instructions on how to report costs of production in an economy 
experiencing high inflation.
    We received responses to section A of the questionnaire from MMZ 
and Ozborsan on December 17, 2003, and from Guven on January 12, 2004. 
We received responses to sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire from 
MMZ and Ozborsan in January 2004, and from Guven in February 2004. We 
issued supplemental questionnaires, pertaining to sections A through D 
of the questionnaire, to the respondents from January through March 
2004. Respondents replied to these supplemental questionnaires in 
February and March 2004. Ozborsan filed its response and supplemental 
responses to the Department's questionnaires on a joint basis with its 
sister company, Onur Metal (Onur).
    On January 28, 2004, petitioners submitted a letter in support of 
the postponement of the preliminary determination. On February 5, 2004, 
pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department postponed 
the preliminary determination of this investigation by 50 days, from 
February 16, 2004, until April 6, 2004. See Light-walled Pipe and Tube 
from Mexico and Turkey: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary 
Antidumping Duty Determinations, 69 FR 5487 (February 5, 2004).
    On February 19, 2004, the Department issued the antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Ozdemir Boru Profil San. Ve. Tic. Ltd. Sti. (Ozdemir) 
in order to examine its relationship with certain other Turkish 
respondents. The Department requested that Ozdemir submit its response 
to section A of the questionnaire by March 12, 2004. On March 17, 2004, 
the Department notified Ozdemir that its response to section A of the 
questionnaire was past due and requested that Ozdemir notify the 
Department by March 22, 2004, if it had encountered unexpected 
difficulties in submitting its response. On March 18, 2004, Ozdemir 
sent a letter to the Department in which it requested a two week 
extension of the deadline for submitting its section A response. On 
March 22, 2004, Ozdemir provided an incomplete response to section A of 
the Department's questionnaire. Furthermore, Ozdemir did not provide a 
response to sections B, C, and D of the questionnaire, which were due 
on March 26, 2004, nor did it request an extension of this deadline.

Postponement of the Final Determination

    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, or in the event of a negative 
preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by 
the petitioners. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), 
require that requests by respondents for postponement of a final 
determination be accompanied by a request for an extension of the 
provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six 
months.
    On March 19, 2004, Ozborsan/Onur requested that, in the event of an 
affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the 
Department postpone its final determination until 135 days after the 
publication of the preliminary determination. Ozborsan/Onur also 
included a request to extend the period for any provisional measures 
from a period of four months to not more than six months after the 
publication of the preliminary determination. Accordingly, since we 
have made an affirmative preliminary determination, and the requesting 
parties account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject 
merchandise, we have postponed the final determination until not later 
than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary 
determination.

[[Page 19392]]

Period of Investigation

    The POI is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. See 19 CFR 
351.204(b)(1).

Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations 
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 
19, 1997)), we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage of the scope of the investigation and 
encouraged all parties to submit comments on product coverage within 20 
calendar days of publication of the Initiation Notice (see 68 FR 
57668). As noted above, no comments were submitted to the record of 
this investigation. However, certain Mexican producers and the 
petitioners provided comments regarding the scope of these 
investigations. See the preliminary determination of the antidumping 
investigation on LWRPT from Mexico.

Scope of Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is LWRPT from Turkey, 
which are welded carbon-quality pipe and tube of rectangular (including 
square) cross-section, having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch. 
These LWRPT have rectangular cross sections ranging from 0.375 x 0.625 
inches to 2 x 6 inches, or square cross sections ranging from 0.375 to 
4 inches, regardless of specification. LWRPT are currently classifiable 
under item number 7306.60.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the 
United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS item number is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description 
of the scope is dispositive.
    The term ``carbon-quality'' applies to products in which (i) iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements, 
(ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight, and (iii) none 
of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, 
respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 2.25 percent of 
silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 
1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of 
lead, or 1.25 percent of nickle, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.10 
percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium (also called 
columbium), or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium.

Selection of Respondents

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate 
weight-average individual dumping margins for each known exporter and 
producer of the subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to 
examine all known producers/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 from the exporting country that can 
reasonably be examined. As guidance in selecting respondents, the 
petitioners provided a copy of the chapter on Turkish companies from 
the 14th edition of Iron and Steel Works of the World, published by 
Metal Bulletin Books, in addition to a list of Turkish steel tube 
manufacturers. See Petition at Exhibit 7B. U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) import statistics identify eighteen exporters/
producers of subject merchandise during the POI. However, due to 
limited resources, we determined that we could investigate only the 
three Turkish producers/exporters that accounted for the largest volume 
of exports to the United States during the POI. See Respondent 
Selection Memo. Therefore, we selected Guven, MMZ, and Ozborsan as 
mandatory respondents in this investigation.

Collapsing

    Section 771(33)(A) of the Act states that affiliated persons 
include, ``{m{time} embers of a family, including brothers and sisters 
(whether by the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal 
descendants.'' In addition, section 771(33)(F) of the Act states that, 
``two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled 
by, or under common control with, any person,'' shall be considered to 
be affiliated. Furthermore, under 19 CFR 351.401(f), we will treat 
``two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where those 
producers (1) Have production facilities for similar or identical 
products that would not require substantial retooling of either 
facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and (2) the 
Secretary concludes that there is significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production'' based on factors such as: (a) The 
level of common ownership; (b) the extent to which managerial employees 
or board members of one firm sit on the board of the other firm; and 
(c) whether operations are intertwined (e.g., through sharing of sales 
information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, sharing 
facilities/employees, and/or significant transactions between the two 
affiliated producers).
    Guven, Ozborsan, and Ozdemir are owned by three brothers, each of 
which owns the largest percentage of shares in his respective company. 
In addition, the brother who owns the largest percentage of shares of 
Ozborsan is also a significant shareholder of Ozborsan's sister 
company, Onur. The Department considers these three brothers to be 
``affiliated persons'' pursuant to section 771(33)(A) of the Act. See 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand, 62 FR 53808 (October 16, 
1997).
    Further, the Department considers Guven, Onur, Ozborsan, and 
Ozdemir to be affiliated according to section 771(33)(F) of the Act 
(``two or more persons directly or indirectly, controlled by, or under 
common control with, any person,'' shall be considered to be 
affiliated).
    Section 771(33) of the Act states that ``a person shall be 
considered to control another person if the person is legally or 
operationally in a position to exercise restraint or direction over the 
other person.'' Although this section of the statute uses the singular 
phrase ``any person,'' the Court of International Trade (CIT) has 
recognized that ``the singular word `person' can be interpreted to 
encompass a `family' in order to carry out the intent of the statute.'' 
See Ferro Union, Inv. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 1326 citing 
St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 657, 68L. ED. 486, 44 S. Ct. 213 
(1924), (``words importing the singular may {not{time}  extend and be 
applied to several persons or things * * * except where it is necessary 
to carry out the evident intent of the statute (emphasis added).'') 
(Ferro Union). As the CIT noted in Ferro Union, ``the intent of 19 
U.S.C. 1677(33) was to identify control exercised through `corporate or 
family groupings.' SAA {Statement of Administrative Action{time}  at 
838. By interpreting `family' as a control person, Commerce was giving 
effect to this intent.'' See Ferro Union, 44 F. Supp. 2d at 1325; see 
also, 19 CFR 351.102(b) (``{i{time} n determining whether control over 
another person exists, within the meaning of section 771(33) of the 
Act, the Secretary will consider the following factors, among others: 
corporate or family groupings * * *). Additionally, in past cases 
involving control through corporate or family groupings, the Department 
has noted that the control factors of individual members of the group 
(e.g., stock ownership, management

[[Page 19393]]

positions, board membership) are considered in the aggregate. See 
Certain Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From 
Brazil; Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
65 FR 5554, 5566 (February 4, 2000).
    With respect to Ozborsan and Onur, the brother who owns Ozborsan is 
also a significant shareholder in Onur. Moreover, Ozborsan stated that 
Onur has the same management structure as Ozborsan (see Exhibit A-2 of 
Ozborsan's December 17, 2003, submission and Ozborsan/Onur's March 29, 
2004, submission at 2). The management chart that Ozborsan provided in 
Exhibit A-2 indicates that the brother who owns the largest percent of 
shares in Ozborsan is also Ozborsan's ``Head of Company.'' Thus, this 
person is both a signifcant shareholder in Onur and is also the ``Head 
of Company'' for Onur. Furthermore, the brother who owns the largest 
percentage of shares in Guven is also the President of Guven. The third 
brother, who owns the largest percentage of shares in Ozdemir, is also 
the founder and Managing Director of Ozdemir.
    The brothers' leadership positions within these companies, as well 
as the fact that the brothers own the largest percentage of shares in 
their respective companies, puts these brothers in a position to 
directly or indirectly control Guven, Onur, Ozborsan, and Ozdemir, thus 
satisfying the requirements of affiliation under section 771(33)(F) of 
the Act. Based on the Department's practice of considering companies or 
corporate groups under family control to be affiliated under section 
771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, the Department considers Guven, Onur, 
Ozborsan, and Ozdemir to be affiliated. See Memorandum from Thomas F. 
Futtner, Acting Office Director, to Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, ``Decision Memorandum: Whether to Collapse Certain 
Turkish Pipe and Tube Producers Into A Single Entity,'' dated April 6, 
2004 (Collapsing Memorandum).
    Regarding the first collapsing criterion listed in 19 CFR 
351.401(f) (producers with production facilities for similar or 
identical products), the evidence on the record indicates that Guven, 
Onur, Ozborsan, and Ozdemir produce subject merchandise. Ozborsan 
stated that it produces subject merchandise at the same production 
facility as Onur. Production by Ozborsan and Onur is fully integrated; 
workers from both companies work on the same shifts to fulfill the same 
production orders--whether for the home market or for export. See 
Collapsing Memorandum at 5. On this basis, we find that Onur and 
Ozborsan satisfy the first criterion.
    Guven and Ozborsan/Onur reported in their respective responses to 
section D of the questionnaire the use of an identical manufacturing 
process to produce subject merchandise. Both companies purchase hot-
rolled and cold-rolled steel in coils; the coils are first slit, then 
formed, welded, and cut to length. Id. Furthermore, Guven and Ozborsan/
Onur both produce subject merchandise in a wide variety of sizes and 
reported sales during the POI of nearly all of the same type of 
products (CONNUMs) in their U.S. and comparison-market databases.
    Ozdemir, in its incomplete response to section A of the 
questionnaire, stated that it manufactures pipes and tubes using coils 
of hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel. Ozdemir also indicated that it 
produces both square and rectangular pipe and tube, with outside 
perimeters and wall thicknesses covering the full range of products 
included in the scope of this investigation. Since all four companies 
manufacture a wide variety of sizes of subject merchandise utilizing a 
similar production process, we conclude that Guven, Onur, Ozborsan, and 
Ozdemir would not require substantial retooling of their facilities in 
order to restructure manufacturing priorities.
    In analyzing the second criterion, whether there exists significant 
potential for manipulation of price or production, we first consider 
the level of ownership. We note that the three brothers own the largest 
percentage of shares in Guven, Ozborsan, and Ozdemir, respectively, and 
one of the three brothers is a significant shareholder in Ozborsan's 
sister company, Onur. Based upon this family ownership, we find that 
there is common ownership of Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir and that 
such ownership is one factor indicating a significant potential for the 
manipulation of price or production. See Collapsing Memorandum at 6.
    Second, in addition to being the shareholders owning the largest 
percentage of shares, as indicated above, members of this family hold 
senior management positions within each company. One brother, who owns 
the largest percentage of shares in Ozborsan, is a member of Ozborsan's 
Board of Directors and is also the ``Head of Company'' for both 
Ozborsan and Onur. Another brother is the President of Guven and his 
son is the General Manager of Guven, whose responsibilities include 
``strategic/economic planning'' and ``procurement/sourcing.'' See 
Guven's response to the Department's section A of the questionnaire, 
dated January 12, 2004, at page 5. Lastly, the third brother is the 
founder and Managing Director of Ozdemir. This brother has ``full 
authorization * * * to establish prices, selling and general expenses 
and production costs.'' See Ozdemir's response to the Department's 
section A of the questionnaire, dated March 22, 2004, at page 2. In 
addition, this person has ``full control and is the decision-marker'' 
at Ozdemir. See Collapsing Memorandum at 6. Due to the fact that key 
senior management positions in Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir are 
held by members of this family, we conclude that these close management 
relationships are another factor indicating a significant potential for 
the manipulation of price or production between these companies.
    Third, regarding the intertwining of operations, we have already 
indicated that Ozborsan and Onur share the same production facilities 
and management executives. Even though domestic sales are credited to 
Onur, and export sales are credited to Ozborsan, Onur's employees do 
not strictly work on products sold in Turkey, and Ozborsan's employees 
do not strictly work on products sold in export markets.
    Furthermore, Ozborsan/Onur stated that, on occasion, it and one of 
the other companies have swapped hot-rolled and cold-rolled coils when 
size availability was an issue. Id. at 7. Additionally, Ozborsan/Onur 
stated that all three of the companies occasionally use each other's 
trucks for shipments to the port and for transporting raw materials 
from the port to the factory. According to Ozborsan/Onur, because these 
swaps were even exchanges (i.e., the quantity swapped by each company 
was the same), there was no financial transaction to record, and 
Ozborsan/Onur kept no file documenting such exchanges.
    The fact that Ozborsan/Onur does not record such transactions in 
its inventory records and freight ledger suggests that Ozborsan/Onur 
and the other company with which it exchanged coils consider each 
other's inventory and assets as a pool from which both can freely draw. 
In addition, although Ozborsan/Onur characterizes such swaps as 
occurring ``in a few instances'' and ``occasionally,'' the fact that it 
did not quantify the volume of such transactions leaves open the 
question of how often such swaps occurred. Lastly, since Ozborsan/Onur 
and the other company own their own trucks, the fact that they shared 
these trucks with each other during the POI is evidence of shared 
facilities.

[[Page 19394]]

    In addition, Guven reported that during the POI it had several 
transactions with one of the other two companies owned by the family. 
Specifically, Guven stated that it sold a significant quantity of 
subject and non-subject tubes, in addition to a significant quantity of 
hot-rolled coil, to this other company. Guven also purchased a 
significant quantity of tubes from this company during the POI. Lastly, 
Guven reported that it purchased a small amount of galvanized pipes 
from one of the other companies owned by the family. Id. at 8.
    Based upon the intertwined operations described above, the 
Department concludes that these interactions indicate that there is a 
significant potential for the manipulation of price or production 
between these companies.
    Based on these reasons, we find that Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and 
Ozdemir are affiliated producers with similar or identical production 
facilities that would not require substantial retooling in order to 
restructure manufacturing priorities. We also find that there exists a 
significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. See 
Collapsing Memorandum. Therefore, we have collapsed Guven, Ozborsan/
Onur, and Ozdemir, and are treating them as a single entity for 
purposes of the preliminary determination in this antidumping 
investigation.

Facts Available

    For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of 
adverse facts available is appropriate for the preliminary 
determination with respect to Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir.

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 this case, Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir have failed to 
provide pertinent information requested by the Department that is 
necessary to properly calculate antidumping margins for its preliminary 
determination. Specifically, Ozborsan/Onur failed to provide the 
following requested information, all of which is necessary to complete 
the Department's calculations: (1) Product-specific costs by CONNUM; 
(2) an explanation why the company was unable to determine the cost 
differences between products, or an explanation of why the company 
believes that the differences are insignificant enough that there is no 
cost difference between products; (3) a reconciliation of the total 
costs in the financial statements to the total costs reported to the 
Department; (4) separate cost files for Ozborsan and Onur which 
reconcile to each company's financial accounting system; (5) a 
reconciliation of the production quantities to the sales quantities; 
(6) depreciation expense based on the revaluated fixed asset values; 
and (7) calculation of general and administrative and financial expense 
ratios based on the fiscal year that most closely coincides with the 
period of investigation. In addition, Ozborsan/Onur stated that it 
``swapped'' hot-rolled coils with one of the other companies. Ozborsan/
Onur claims that no records are kept of such swaps, and Ozborsan/Onur 
was unable to quantify these transactions. As a result of Ozborsan/
Onur's failure to provide the above requested information, the 
Department is unable to use the reported cost of manufacturing data to 
test home market sales to determine whether the sales prices can form 
the basis for the calculation of normal value (NV). Additionally, 
because of the noted omissions, the cost data cannot be used for 
difference in merchandise purposes or for calculating constructed value 
(CV).
    With respect to Guven, the company failed to provide: (1) Any cost 
reconciliations; (2) product-specific costs and worksheets; (3) an 
explanation of its cost accounting system and how costs were allocated 
between subject and non-subject merchandise; (4) a description of its 
production process; (5) detailed cost build-ups for the requested 
models sold in the third country and home markets; (6) an explanation 
of its cost response methodology; (7) an explanation as to whether the 
reported costs were based on world-wide production quantities and not 
on any specific market; (8) a reconciliation of the production 
quantities to the sales quantities; and (9) the requested general and 
administrative (G&A) and financial expense ratios based on the indexed 
monthly historical G&A and financial expenses and cost of goods sold 
for the fiscal year 2003. In addition, Guven did not report significant 
expense items for months for which production was reported. As a result 
of Guven's failure to provide the above requested information, the 
Department is unable to use the reported cost of manufacturing data to 
test home market sales to determine whether the sales prices can form 
the basis for NV. Additionally, because of the noted omissions, the 
cost data cannot be used for difference in merchandise purposes or for 
calculating CV. Additionally, we note that Guven did not respond to the 
Department's supplemental section D questionnaire by the established 
deadline.
    With respect to Ozdemir, the company provided an incomplete section 
A response, and failed to provide a response to sections B, C, and D of 
the Department's questionnaire. Because Ozdemir withheld information 
requested by the Department, the Department will rely on the facts 
otherwise available in order to determine a margin for Ozdemir.
    Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, we have based Guven, 
Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir's dumping margin on facts available.

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

[[Page 19395]]

Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at 870 (1994) (SAA). 
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27355 
(May 19, 1997). Although the Department provided respondents with 
notice of the consequences of failure to adequately respond to the 
questions, in this case, Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, and Ozdemir have failed 
to timely provide complete and useable responses to the Department's 
section D questionnaires. See the Department's letters to Ozborsan/
Onur, Guven, and Ozdemir on February 27, 2004, March 12, 2004, and 
March 17, 2004, respectively. The original questionnaire was issued on 
November 21, 2003, to which Ozborsan/Onur submitted its section D 
response on January 12, 2004 and Guven submitted its response on 
February 19, 2004. In order to address the deficiencies in Ozborsan/
Onur's response, the Department issued a supplemental section D 
questionnaire on February 27, 2004. Ozborsan/Onur's response was 
received on March 16, 2004. On March 12, 2004, the Department issued 
the supplemental section D questionnaire to Guven. Guven failed to 
respond to the supplemental section D questionnaire by the established 
deadline of March 25, 2004. In these supplemental questionnaires we 
noted that in the previous submissions, Guven and Ozborsan/Onur failed 
to provide requested detailed cost of manufacturing information 
necessary for the Department to adequately analyze the response. Guven 
and Ozborsan/Onur's failure to provide this critical information in a 
timely manner has rendered their entire submissions inadequate and 
unusable for the preliminary determination. In addition, as discussed 
above, Ozdemir did not provide a response to sections B, C, and D of 
the questionnaire, which was due on March 26, 2004. This constitutes a 
failure on the part of these companies to cooperate to the best of 
their abilities 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. See, 
e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Circular Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Japan, 65 FR 
42985, 42986 (July 12, 2000) (the Department applied total adverse 
facts available (AFA) where respondent failed to respond to the 
antidumping questionnaires).

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 margins based on Guven's, 
Ozborsan/Onur's, and Ozdemir's own data and because an adverse 
inference is warranted, we have assigned to all three companies the 
highest margin from the proceeding, which is the highest margin alleged 
for Turkey in the petition, as recalculated in the initiation and 
described in detail below. See Initiation Notice.
    As noted in the Corroboration of Normal Value section below, the 
calculation of CV in the petition contains an amount of zero for profit 
because the Turkish producer relied upon for the calculation of the 
financial ratios reported a loss in its financial statements. Although 
a publicly available amount for profit is not currently on the record 
of this investigation, we will consider adding profit to CV for the 
final determination in the event we are able to identify a publicly 
available amount for profit that is usable given the facts of this 
proceeding.
    When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act 
provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information 
(such as the petition), 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 and during our pre-initiation analysis for both this 
preliminary determination. See Office of AD/CVD Enforcement Initiation 
Checklist, at 11 (September 29, 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 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 NV 
calculations on which the margins in the petition were based. See 
Memorandum from Paige Rivas, International Trade Analyst, to Tom 
Futtner, Acting Director, Office 4, Re: Corroboration of Data Contained 
in the Petition for Assigning Facts Available Rates, dated April 6, 
2004 (Corroboration Memo).
1. Corroboration of Export Price
    The petitioners based EP on prices of LWRPT obtained from U.S. 
distributors of products that are identical in size to products 
manufactured and sold in Turkey. The petitioners calculated net U.S. 
price by deducting international freight and U.S. import duties for the 
U.S. price quotes. We compared the U.S. market price quotes with 
official U.S. import statistics and found the prices used by the 
petitioners to be reliable.
2. Corroboration of Normal Value
    With respect to the NV, the petitioners obtained, through foreign 
market research, two price quotes from resellers in Turkey for products 
manufactured by a major Turkish producer named in the Petition. The 
petitioners calculated net Turkish prices by deducting the average 
discount offered by the Turkish resellers from the price quotes.
    The petitioners also provided information demonstrating reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of LWRPT in the home market 
were made at prices below the fully absorbed cost of production (COP), 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM), selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) 
expenses, financial expenses, and packing expenses. The petitioners 
calculated COP based on the experience of a U.S. LWRPT producer, 
adjusted for known differences between costs incurred to produce LWRPT 
products in the United States and Turkey using publicly

[[Page 19396]]

available data. To calculate SG&A and financial expenses, the 
petitioners relied upon amounts reported in the 2002 financial 
statements of Borusan Holding A.S., which is the parent company of 
Mannesman Boru, a major producer of the subject merchandise in Turkey.
    Based upon a comparison of the price of the foreign like product to 
the calculated COP, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within 
the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the 
Department initiated a country-wide cost investigation. For initiation 
purposes and for the purposes of this preliminary determination, we 
corrected the petitioners' conversion from dollars per metric ton to 
dollars per hundred feet for the 55mm x 50mm x 3mm product. See 
Initiation Checklist at 11 and Attachment III.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the 
petitioners based NV on CV. The petitioners calculated CV using the 
same COM, SG&A and financial expense figures used to compute the COP. 
Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioners included 
in CV an amount for profit. For profit, the petitioners relied upon 
amounts reported in Borusan Holding A.S.'s 2002 financial statements. 
However, the profit amounted to zero because Borusan reported a loss in 
its financial statements.
    For purposes of corroborating CV, we compared the cost data 
submitted in the petition to information submitted by MMZ. 
Specifically, we compared net CV for one CONNUM for MMZ to the CV used 
to calculate the highest margin the petition. This CONNUM is identified 
in Exhibit C2 of MMZ's March 24, 2004, submission as containing 
production quantities that are comparable to the product with the 
highest margin in the petition. We found the CV used by the petitioners 
to be reliable.
    Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate 
information contained in the petition, and in accordance with section 
776(c) of the Act, we consider the highest margin in the petition to be 
corroborated to the extent practicable for purposes of this preliminary 
determination.
    Accordingly, in selecting AFA with respect to Guven, Ozborsan/Onur, 
and Ozdemir, we have applied the margin rate of 34.89 percent, which is 
the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of 
initiation. See Initiation Notice, 68 FR 57667.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products 
manufactured by the respondents in the home market and covered by the 
description contained in the Scope of Investigation section, above, and 
sold in the home market during the POI are considered to be foreign 
like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied upon seven criteria to match 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-market sales of the 
foreign like product: steel type, galvanized coating, whether the 
merchandise was painted or primed, outside perimeter, wall thickness, 
shape, and finish. 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 LWRPT from Turkey were made in the 
United States at LTFV, we compared the EP to the NV, as described in 
the 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. We compared these to weighted-average home market 
prices in Turkey.
    Based on our examination of Turkey's inflation indices, we 
determined that the Turkish economy was experiencing high inflation 
during the POI. ``High inflation'' is a term used to refer to a high 
rate of increase in price levels. Investigations covering exports from 
countries with highly inflationary economies require the use of special 
methodologies in comparing prices and calculating CV and COP. See 
Policy Bulletin No. 94.5, ``Differences in Merchandise Calculations in 
Hyper-inflationary Economies,'' dated March 25, 1994. Generally, the 
Department considers the annual inflation rate to be high if it is in 
excess of 25 percent. Based upon our examination of the consumer price 
and wholesale price indices, which indicate that Turkey experienced an 
inflation rate over 25 percent during the POI, we find Turkey's economy 
experienced high inflation. See 2002 and 2003 issues of the 
International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
    Because Turkey's economy experienced high inflation during the POI, 
as is Department practice, we limited our comparisons to home market 
sales made during the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred. This 
methodology minimizes the extent to which calculated dumping margins 
are overstated or understated due solely to price inflation that 
occurred in the intervening period between the U.S. and home market 
sales. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Turkey, 
67 FR 31264 (May 9, 2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From Turkey, 67 FR 62126 (October 3, 2002).

Export Price

    In calculating U.S. price, the Department used EP, as defined in 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold, prior to 
importation, by MMZ to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. 
Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject 
merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of 
importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an 
unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as 
adjusted under subsection 772(c) of the Act. We calculated EP based on 
the packed prices charged to unaffiliated customers in the United 
States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made 
deductions from the starting price, where applicable, for foreign 
movement expenses, including brokerage and handling and inland freight.
    The Department interprets section 772(c)(1)(B) as requiring that 
any duty drawback be added to EP if two criteria are met: (1) import 
duties and rebates are directly linked to, and dependent upon, one 
another, and; (2) raw materials were imported in sufficient quantities 
to account for the duty drawback received on exports of the 
manufactured product. Since the normal criteria appear to have been met 
in this case, we made additions to the starting price for duty drawback 
in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. However, we intend 
to further scrutinize the appropriateness of granting MMZ's requested 
duty drawback adjustment in light of the facts of this case in making 
our final determination in this investigation.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    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 has 
sufficient aggregate

[[Page 19397]]

value, if quantity is inappropriate) and that there is no particular 
market situation in the home market that prevents a proper comparison 
with the EP transaction. 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. Based on a comparison of 
aggregate quantity of home market sales and U.S. sales by MMZ, we 
determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in Turkey 
permitted a proper comparison with the sales of subject merchandise 
because the quantity of sales in the home market was more than five 
percent of the quantity of sales to the U.S. market. Accordingly, for 
MMZ, we based NV on home market sales. In deriving NV, we made 
adjustments as detailed in the Calculation of Normal Value Based on 
Constructed Value section below.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    MMZ reported that it sold LWRPT in the comparison market only to 
unaffiliated customers. Therefore, application of the arm's-length test 
is unnecessary.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    In the original petition, the petitioners alleged that sales of 
LWRPT in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed 
COP, and accordingly, requested that the Department conduct a country-
wide sales-below-cost investigation. Based upon the comparison of the 
petition's adjusted prices and COP for the foreign like product, and in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of LWRPT in Turkey were made 
at prices below the COP. See Initiation Notice. As a result, the 
Department has conducted an investigation to determine whether MMZ made 
sales in the home market at prices below its COP during the POI within 
the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. Our COP analysis is described 
below.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    We determined that the Turkish economy experienced significant 
inflation during the POI. Therefore, in order to avoid the distortive 
effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, we requested 
that each respondent submit the product-specific COM incurred during 
each month of the reporting period. We calculated a period-average COM 
for each product after indexing the reported monthly costs during to an 
equivalent currency level using the Wholesale Price Index for Turkey 
from the International Financial Statistics published by the 
International Monetary Fund. We then restated the period-average COMs 
in the currency values of each respective month.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a 
weighted-average COP for MMZ 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 and interest expenses. We relied on the submitted 
COP data except in the specific instances noted below, where the 
submitted costs were not appropriately quantified or valued.
    We made the following adjustments to MMZ's submitted COP data: (1) 
Increased the reported raw material cost to disallow the claimed offset 
for the sales of second quality merchandise; (2) increased the reported 
raw material costs to include the duty cost which was claimed as a duty 
drawback adjustment to U.S. price but which was not included in COM; 
(3) increased the reported raw material cost to reflect the higher of 
transfer price or market price as required by section 773(f)(2) of the 
Act; (4) increased fixed overhead to include the full depreciation 
expense on assets purchased in 2002; (5) increased G&A expenses to 
include accrual adjustments; and (6) revised the reported financial 
expense ratio to include total net foreign exchange gains and losses.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
    As required by section 773(b) of the Act, we compared MMZ'a 
adjusted weighted-average COP to the comparison-market sales prices of 
the foreign like product, in order to determine whether these sales had 
been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such prices were sufficient to 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On 
a product-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the 
comparison-market prices, less any applicable movement charges, taxes, 
rebates, commissions, and other direct and indirect selling expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product during the POI were made at 
prices below the COP and thus such sales were made within an extended 
period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 
773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price 
to weighted-average COPs for the POI, we determined that the below-cost 
sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that for certain products, MMZ made home market sales at 
prices below the COP within an extended period of time in substantial 
quantities. Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit 
the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we 
excluded these sales from our analysis in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

    We determined price-based NVs for MMZ as follows. Where applicable, 
we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences 
in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as for differences in 
circumstances of sale (COS) attributed to billing adjustments and 
imputed credit expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made adjustments, pursuant to 19 
CFR 351.410(e), for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-
market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one 
market but not in the other (the commission offset). Finally, we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in 
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that, where NV cannot be 
based on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, 
for those models of LWRPT for which we could not determine the NV based 
on comparison-market sales, either because there were no sales of a 
comparable product or all sales of the comparison products failed the 
COP test, we based NV on CV.
    In accordance with sections 773(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for selling expenses, G&A, 
interest, profit and U.S. packing costs. We calculated the cost of 
materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the 
``Calculation of Cost of Production'' section of this notice. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we

[[Page 19398]]

based selling expenses, G&A, and profit on the amounts incurred and 
realized by MMZ, in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in 
the foreign country.

F. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practical, the Department determined NV based on sales in the home 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP sales. The NV LOT is 
that of the starting-price sales in the home market. For EP sales, the 
U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP 
sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling 
activities along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the home market sales are at a different LOT, 
and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a 
pattern of consistent price differences between the home market sales 
on which NV is based and the home market sales at the LOT of the export 
transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the 
Act.
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information 
from MMZ about the marketing stages for the reported U.S. and home 
market sales, including a description of the selling activities 
performed by MMZ for each channel of distribution. In identifying LOTs 
for EP and home market sales, we considered the selling functions 
reflected in the starting price before any adjustments. See 19 CFR 
351.412(c)(1)(i) and (iii). We expect that, if claimed LOTs are the 
same, the selling functions and activities of the seller at each level 
should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are 
different for different groups of sales, the selling functions and 
activities of the seller for each group should be dissimilar.
    In its questionnaire responses, MMZ reported that during the POI, 
it sold the foreign like product in the home market through one channel 
of distribution and in the United States through two channels of 
distribution. We found that MMZ engaged in similar selling activities 
for all home market sales. However, we found that there are also no 
differences in the selling functions performed in the U.S. channels of 
distribution. Based on the similarity of the selling functions, we have 
determined that MMZ sold LWRPT at one LOT in the home market and one 
LOT in the U.S. market. We also found that the selling activities 
performed by MMZ in the home market are similar to those performed in 
the U.S. market, with the exception that MMZ provided freight and 
delivery in the U.S. market but did not provide this service in the 
home market. Specifically, MMZ engaged in sales forecasting, strategic/
economic planning, packing, order/input processing, and use of direct 
sales personnel in both markets. Therefore, we have preliminarily 
determined that the LOTs in the home and U.S. markets are the same LOT. 
Thus, a LOT adjustment is not required for comparison of U.S. sales to 
home market sales.

G. Currency Conversions

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions based on exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/Retrieval 
Service.

Verification

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

All Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides for the use of an ``all 
others'' rate, which is applied to non-investigated firms. See SAA at 
873. This section states that the all others rate shall generally be an 
amount equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established for 
exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero 
and de minimis margins, and any margins based entirely upon the facts 
available. Therefore, we have preliminarily assigned to all other 
exporters of LWRPT from Turkey a margin that is based on the margin 
calculated for the mandatory respondent.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing CBP 
to suspend liquidation of all entries of LWRPT from Turkey that are 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will 
instruct CBP to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal 
to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, 
as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation 
instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The weighted-
average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guven......................................................        34.89
MMZ........................................................         4.75
Ozborsan/Onur..............................................        34.89
Ozdemir....................................................        34.89
All Others.................................................         4.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties to the 
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 our preliminary sales at LTFV determination. If our final 
antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine 
whether the imports covered by that determination are materially 
injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. The 
deadline for that ITC determination would be the later of 120 days 
after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the 
date of our final determination.

Public Comment

    Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 
one week after the issuance of the last verification report. Rebuttal 
briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission 
of case briefs. 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, the Department respectfully 
requests that all parties submitting written comments also provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
comments on diskette.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 
hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing 
is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days 
after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the

[[Page 19399]]

time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled 
time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of 
the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of 
participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 
presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs.
    As noted above, the Department will make its final determination 
within 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary 
determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 6, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-8377 Filed 4-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P