[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53887-53892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2069]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-841]


Structural Steel Beams from Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: On September 30, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register (68 FR 56262) a notice 
announcing the initiation of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on structural steel beams from the Republic of 
Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2002, to July 
30, 2003.
    We preliminarily determine that sales of structural steel beams 
from Korea have been made at prices below the normal value (NV) by the 
respondents, INI Steel Company (INI) and Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. 
(DSM). If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of 
this administrative review, we will instruct Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties based on all appropriate 
entries.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested 
to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issues, (2) a brief 
summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0649.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 1, 2003 the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
structural steel beams from Korea. (See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 68 FR 45218 (August 1, 2003)). On August 29, 
2003, petitioners Nucor Corporation, Nucor Yamato Steel Co., and TXI-
Chaparral Steel Co. requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of DSM and INI, which are Korean producers of 
subject merchandise. Also, on August 29, 2003, DSM requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of subject 
merchandise during the POR. On September 30, 2003, the Department 
published a notice of initiation of a review of structural steel beams 
from Korea covering the period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 2003. 
(See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 56262 (September 30, 
2003)). On December 17, 2003 the Department issued its antidumping duty 
questionnaires, covering Sections A through E, to INI and to DSM.
    The Department had not disregarded sales of structural steel beams 
made by DSM at prices below the cost of production (COP) in the most 
recently completed review of DSM; therefore DSM was not initially 
required to respond to section D of the questionnaire. On March 2, 
2004, petitioners filed an allegation that DSM had made below-cost 
sales. On April 6, 2004, the Department initiated a cost investigation 
of DSM, after which DSM was required to respond to Section D of the 
questionnaire.
    Because we disregarded sales of certain products made by INI at 
prices below the COP in what was at that time the most recently 
completed review of structural steel beams from Korea (see Structural 
Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative

[[Page 53888]]

Review, 68 FR 2499 (January 17, 2003)), we had reasonable grounds to 
believe or suspect INI made sales of the foreign like product at prices 
below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff 
Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, from 
the outset of this review we required INI to respond to section D of 
the questionnaire.
    INI submitted its response to sections A through D on January 16, 
2004. On April 6, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to INI, to which INI responded on April 30, 2004. On July 
21, 2004, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to 
INI, to which INI responded on August 11, 2004.
    DSM submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire on 
January 7, 2004, and its response to sections B and C of the 
questionnaire on February 9, 2004. On March 9, 2004, the Department 
issued a supplemental questionnaire to DSM for Section A, to which DSM 
responded on April 6, 2004. On April 15, 2004, the Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to DSM for Section B, to which DSM responded 
on May 10, 2004. On May 3, 2004, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to DSM for Section C, to which DSM responded on May 27, 
2004.
    DSM submitted its response to Section D of the questionnaire on May 
4, 2004. On July 22, 2004, the Department issued an additional 
supplemental questionnaire to DSM, covering sections A, B, C, and D, to 
which DSM responded on August 20, 2004.
    Both INI and DSM indicated in their initial Section A responses 
that no further manufacturing in the United States was performed by an 
affiliate or a contractor, and neither provided responses to Section E 
of the questionnaire.
    Because it was not practicable to complete this review within the 
normal time frame, on December 16, 2003, the Department extended the 
time limit for the preliminary results of the administrative review to 
August 30, 2004 (see Structural Steel Beams From Korea: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 69 FR 16894 (March 31, 2004)).

Period of Review

    The POR is from August 1, 2002, to July 30, 2003.

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by this review are doubly-symmetric shapes, 
whether hot- or cold-rolled, drawn, extruded, formed or finished, 
having at least one dimension of at least 80 mm (3.2 inches or more), 
whether of carbon or alloy (other than stainless) steel, and whether or 
not drilled, punched, notched, painted, coated or clad. These products 
include, but are not limited to, wide-flange beams (``W'' shapes), 
bearing piles (``HP'' shapes), standard beams (``S'' or ``I'' shapes) 
and ``M'' shapes. All products that meet the physical and metallurgical 
descriptions provided above are within the scope of this review unless 
otherwise excluded. The following products are outside and/or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this review: structural steel 
beams greater than 400 pounds per linear foot or with a web or section 
height (also known as depth) over 40 inches.
    The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') at 
subheadings: 7216.32.00000, 7216.33.0030, 7216.33.0060, 7216.33.0090, 
7216.50.0000, 7216.61.0000, 7216.69.0000, 7216.91.0000, 7216.99.0000, 
7216.99.0010, 7216.99.0090, 7228.70.3040, and 7228.70.6000. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Tariff Act, we considered 
all structural steel beams produced by DSM and INI covered by the 
description in the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, 
supra, which were sold in the home market during the reporting period 
for home market sales, to be the foreign like product for the purpose 
of determining appropriate product comparisons to structural steel 
beams products sold in the United States. In making product 
comparisons, we matched products based on the physical characteristics 
identified in our questionnaire and reported by DSM and INI as follows 
(listed in order of preference): hot-formed or cold-formed, shape/size 
(section depth), strength/grade, whether or not coated. 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 questionnaire, or to constructed value (CV), 
as appropriate.

Affiliation

    In the previous administrative review, which covered the August 1, 
2001 through July 31, 2002 POR, the Department found DSM and Dongkuk 
Industries Co., Ltd., (DKI) to be affiliated because they were under 
the common control of a family grouping. (See Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Structural Steel Beams From the 
Republic of Korea, 68 FR 53129, 53131 (September 9, 2003), unchanged in 
Structural Steel Beams From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 7200, 7201 (February 13, 
2004)). DSM and DKI have been determined to be affiliated in recent 
reviews of other antidumping duty orders covering PORs that overlap 
with the POR of the current review of structural steel beams from 
Korea. (See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products 
From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission in Part 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 62770, 62771 (November 
6, 2003), unchanged in Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 
Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results and Rescission in 
Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 26361 (May 12, 
2004), with a POR of February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003; and 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Korea: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 19399 (April 
13, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
1, with a POR of January 30, 2001, through August 31, 2002).
    In the current structural steel beams review, DSM stated in its 
January 7, 2004, Section A response at page 9 that DKI ceased to be 
affiliated with DSM as of January 2001 because of a change in DKI's 
ownership percentage of DSM. However, this change took place prior to 
the previous (August 1, 2001, through July 31, 2002) POR, and this 
information was also accounted for in the Department's affiliation 
decisions in the aforementioned proceedings. Furthermore, DSM 
acknowledged that some of the major owners of DKI are relatives of some 
of the major owners of DSM (see January 7, 2004, Section A response at 
page 9), as was the case in the previous review, and did not provide 
any additional arguments why the Department should determine 
differently in this review. DSM has since continued to maintain that it 
is not affiliated with DKI (see DSM's August 20, 2004, supplemental 
questionnaire response in footnote 8 at

[[Page 53889]]

page 23), but DSM did not provide any additional information or 
explanation to demonstrate that any substantive change has taken place. 
Consequently, we find sufficient evidence to conclude that DSM and DKI 
continue to be affiliated based on the record of this review, given the 
lack of any new information which would lead us to conclude otherwise.

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of structural steel beams from Korea to 
the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we compared 
the export price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, 
as described in the ``Export Price,'' ``Constructed Export Price,'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. In accordance with 
section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we compared the EPs and CEPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the monthly weighted-average NVs of the 
foreign like product where there were sales at prices above the cost of 
production (COP), as discussed in the ``Cost of Production'' section 
below.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    Section 772(a) of the Tariff 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 producer or exporter of the subject 
merchandise outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser 
for exportation to the United States * * *,'' as adjusted under 
subsection (c). Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as ``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, to a purchaser not 
affiliated with the producer or exporter * * *,'' as adjusted under 
subsections (c) and (d). For the purposes of this administrative 
review, DSM has classified all of its U.S. sales as CEP sales, and INI 
has classified all of its U.S. sales as EP sales.

INI

    For INI, we calculated the price of U.S. sales made prior to 
importation to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions from the reported gross price for movement expenses in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; these included, 
where appropriate, foreign inland freight from plant to warehouse, 
foreign inland freight from plant/warehouse to port of exportation, 
foreign warehousing, international freight, U.S. duties, and U.S. 
brokerage expenses. We made an addition to U.S. price for duty drawback 
pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act.

DSM

    For DSM, we calculated CEP based on the prices from Dongkuk 
International, Inc. (DKA), a U.S. affiliate of DSM, to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act; 
these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight from the 
plant to the port of export, foreign brokerage and handling expenses 
incurred by DSM and DKI (i.e., loading and unloading charges, wharfage 
and lashing expenses, brokerage fees, and port renovation expenses), 
international freight, marine insurance, other U.S. transportation 
expenses (i.e., U.S. wharfage, brokerage, and handling charges), and 
U.S. customs duty. Also, we made deductions for commissions for selling 
the subject merchandise in the United States in accordance with section 
772(d)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act.
    Additionally, we made deductions for expenses that bear a direct 
relationship to the sale in the United States (i.e., credit, and other 
direct selling expenses) pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(B). We added an 
amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    For CEP sales, we also made an adjustment for profit in accordance 
with section 772 (d)(3) of the Tariff Act. We deducted the profit 
allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and 772(d)(2) 
in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Tariff Act. In 
accordance with section 772(f) of the Tariff Act, we computed profit 
based on total revenue realized on sales in both the U.S. and home 
markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then 
allocated profit 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 markets.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Tariff Act, to 
the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the 
comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the 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 that 
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 Tariff 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 Tariff 
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 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 Tariff 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. (See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from 
Mexico; Final Results of Administrative Review, 65 FR 30068 (May 10, 
2000)).
    In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we 
obtained information from INI and DSM about the marketing stages 
involved in its reported U.S. and home market sales, including 
descriptions of the selling activities performed for each channel of 
distribution.

INI

    INI indicated its home market sales were through two channels 
(sales to unaffiliated distributors, and sales to affiliated and 
unaffiliated end-users) and its U.S. sales were through one channel (to 
unaffiliated U.S. customers). INI did not claim any distinct levels of 
trade, and its descriptions of selling functions indicated very little 
variation

[[Page 53890]]

across channels and markets. Consequently, we preliminarily determine 
that there is only one level of trade in both markets for INI.

DSM

    DSM claimed only one level of trade in the home market. (See DSM's 
February 9, 2004, Section B response at page 22). Additionally, DSM 
reported that it sold through two channels of distribution in the home 
market: directly to unaffiliated customers (distributors and end-
users); and government entities. (See DSM's February 9, 2004 Section B 
response at page 10). DSM reported that it performed a limited range of 
selling functions in the home market. (See DSM's January 7, 2004, 
section A response at Appendix 4). Because DSM performed the same 
selling functions for its two channels of distribution in the home 
market and identical selling functions are performed for all home 
market sales, we preliminarily determine there is one LOT in the home 
market.
    DSM claimed one level of trade in the U.S. market. DSM reported it 
sold through one channel of distribution in the U.S. market, directly 
from its production facility to the unaffiliated U.S. customer. However 
the complete sales process was as follows: DSM sold the merchandise to 
an affiliated Korean trading company, DKI, which then resold the 
merchandise to another affiliate, DKA, which resold the merchandise to 
the unaffiliated U.S. customer. (See DSM's January 7, 2004, section A 
response at pages 8 and 9).
    To determine the LOT of the respondent's CEP sales, we analyze the 
cumulative selling functions performed by DSM and by DKI. With respect 
to the assorted selling functions identified by DSM and its affiliates 
in DSM's response, the record indicates that those selling functions 
were the same for all U.S. sales. (See DSM's January 7, 2004 section A 
response at Appendix 4). In addition, DSM did not identify all of the 
functions in the Department's original questionnaire, nor did it appear 
to identify all of the functions performed for U.S. sales. Therefore, 
we preliminarily determine that there is no basis for determining that 
there is a distinct, less advanced LOT for U.S. sales than for home 
market sales. Therefore, no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Market

    To determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the 
home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is 
greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. Because the 
respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined the home market was 
viable. (See INI's April 30, 2004, response at Exhibit A-23 and DSM's 
January 7, 2004 section A response at Appendix A-1).

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

    The Department may calculate NV based on a sale to an affiliated 
party only if it is satisfied that the price to the affiliated party is 
comparable to the prices at which sales are made to parties not 
affiliated with the respondent, i.e., sales at arm's-length. (See 
section 773(f)(2) of the Tariff Act; see also 19 CFR 351.403(c)).
    DSM reported no sales to affiliated parties in the home market. INI 
reported that a small portion of its home market sales were to 
affiliated parties. Those sales to affiliated parties amounted to less 
than five percent of total home market sales, and INI was not required 
to report downstream sales of those affiliated parties. Sales to 
affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's-length prices 
are excluded from our analysis because we consider them to be outside 
the ordinary course of trade. (See 19 CFR 351.102(b)). To test whether 
the sales to affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared 
on a model-specific basis the starting prices of sales to affiliated 
and unaffiliated customers net of all direct selling expenses, 
discounts and rebates, movement charges, and packing. Where applicable, 
we also made adjustments to gross unit price for reported billing 
adjustments. Where prices to the affiliated party were, on average, 
within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of identical or 
comparable merchandise to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that 
the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. In 
accordance with the Department's practice, we disregarded sales to 
affiliated parties that we determined were not made at arm's length.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we 
calculated the weighted-average COP for each model based on the sum of 
material and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) 
expenses, interest expenses and packing costs. The Department relied on 
the COP data reported by INI and DSM.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, whether, within an extended 
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time. Pursuant to section 
773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices below 
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent 
or more of the respondent's home market sales of a given model were at 
prices less than COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) 
they were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial 
quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 
Tariff Act, and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-
average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act.
    To determine whether INI made sales at prices below COP, we 
compared the product-specific COP figures to home market prices net of 
reported billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and applicable 
movement charges of the foreign like product as required under section 
773(b) of the Tariff Act. To determine whether DSM made sales at prices 
below COP, we compared the product-specific COP figures to home market 
prices net of applicable movement charges of the foreign like product 
as required under section 773(b) of the Tariff Act.
    Our cost test for INI and for DSM revealed that for home market 
sales of certain models, less than 20 percent of the sales volume (by 
weight) of those models were at prices below the COP. We therefore 
retained all such sales observations in our analysis and used them in 
the calculation of NV. Our cost

[[Page 53891]]

test also indicated that for certain INI models, 20 percent or more of 
the home market sales volume (by weight) were sold at prices below COP 
within an extended period of time and were at prices which would not 
permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time; 
for DSM that was not the case. Thus, in accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, for INI we excluded these below-cost sales 
from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales in the 
calculation of NV.

D. Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act, for both INI 
and DSM, we calculated CV based on the sum of the respondent's material 
and fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. 
We calculated the COP component of CV as described above in the ``Cost 
of Production Analysis'' section of this notice. In accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses 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 the foreign country. 
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market direct 
and indirect selling expenses.

E. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    We calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers and 
prices to affiliated customers we determined to be at arm's length for 
home market sale observations that passed the cost test, and made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff 
Act.
    For INI, we made adjustments to gross unit price, where applicable, 
for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates, and interest revenue, 
and made deductions, where applicable, for foreign inland freight 
(i.e., inland freight from plant to distribution warehouse, and inland 
freight from plant/distribution warehouse to customer), pursuant to 
section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Tariff Act. In accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act, we deducted home market packing 
costs and added U.S. packing costs. We made adjustments for differences 
in circumstances of sale, where applicable, for commissions, home 
market credit expenses, warranty expenses, and U.S. imputed credit 
expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff 
Act. Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, 
where the Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of 
contemporaneous matches in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act, we based NV on CV.
    For DSM, we based NV on the home market prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers. We made adjustments for discounts. We made adjustments, 
where appropriate, for physical differences in the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act. We made 
adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses (i.e., inland 
freight from plant to customer) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) 
of the Tariff Act. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit, 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Tariff Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Tariff Act, we 
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. 
Finally, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, where 
the Department was unable to determine NV on the basis of 
contemporaneous matches in accordance with 773(a)(1)(B)(i), we based NV 
on CV.

Currency Conversion

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

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period August 1, 2002, through July 31, 
2003, to be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INI Steel Company.......................................           16.62
Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd.............................            4.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose calculations performed within five 
days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within thirty 
days of publication of these preliminary results. (See 19 CFR 
351.310(c)). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the 
date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the 
Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties 
may submit case briefs or written comments no later than 30 days after 
the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. 
Rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs and comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date 
of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in these 
proceedings are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement 
of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting case 
briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments would provide the 
Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such 
argument on diskette. The Department will issue final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the 
issues in any such case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and written comments 
or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.
    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion 
of the review. For the preliminary results, we calculated importer-
specific assessment rates based upon importer information provided by 
INI and DSM. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be 
effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of structural steel beams from Korea entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act:
    (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies reviewed will be the 
rates established in the final results of review;
    (2) For any previously reviewed or investigated company 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 
previous review, or the 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) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash 
deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate of 37.21 percent from the 
LTFV investigation; (see Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams From South Korea, 65 FR 
50501 (August 18, 2000) and Structural Steel Beams From South Korea: 
Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 65 FR 50502 (August 18, 2000)).

[[Page 53892]]

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

    Dated: August 30, 2004.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
 [FR Doc. E4-2069 Filed 9-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-P