[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46137-46147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4306]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-831]


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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 2005.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from petitioners \1\ and one 
Taiwanese manufacturer/exporter, Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. 
(``Chia Far''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (``SSSS'') from Taiwan. This 
review covers six producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The 
period of review (``POR'') is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioners are Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation, 
Butler Armco Independent Union, J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., United 
Steelworks of America, AFL-CIO/CLC, and Zanesville Armco Independent 
Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has preliminarily determined that all but one of the 
companies subject to this review made U.S. sales at prices less than 
normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results of review. We will issue the final results of 
review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Blackledge (Chia Far) or 
Karine Gziryan (YUSCO); AD/CVD Operations Office 4, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-3518 or (202) 482-4081, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity 
to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
SSSS from Taiwan. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). In response to this 
opportunity notice, on July 30, 2004, petitioners and one producer/
exporter, Chia Far, requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review covering the period July 1, 2003, through June 
30, 2004. Based on these requests, the Department initiated an 
administrative review of the following sixteen companies: Ta Chen 
Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Ta Chen''), Tung Mung Development Co. Ltd. 
(``Tung Mung''), China Steel Corporation (``China Steel''), Yieh Mau 
Corp. (``Yieh Mau''), Chain Chon Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Chain Chon''), 
Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd. (``Goang Jau Shing''), PFP Taiwan 
Co., Ltd. (``PFP Taiwan''), Yieh Loong Enterprise Company, Ltd. (``Yieh 
Loong''), Tang Eng Iron Works Company, Ltd. (``Tang Eng''), Yieh 
Trading Corporation (``Yieh Trading''), Chien Shing Stainless Steel 
Company Ltd. (``Chien Shing''), Chia Far, Yieh United Steel Corporation 
(``YUSCO''), Emerdex Stainless Flat-Rolled Products, Inc., Emerdex 
Stainless Steel, Inc., and the Emerdex Group (``the Emerdex 
companies''). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 52857 
(August 30, 2004).
    During September, October, and November, 2004, the Department 
issued its antidumping questionnaire to all of the companies for which 
a review was initiated except the Emerdex companies (for further 
discussion of the Emerdex companies, see the section of this notice 
entitled ``Partial Final Rescission of Review,'' below).\2\ Of the six 
companies that responded to the questionnaire, only two, Chia Far and 
YUSCO, reported that they sold subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On November 10, 2004, we notified the following companies by letter 
that if they did not respond to the Department's requests for 
information by November 17, 2004, the Department may use adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') in determining their dumping margins: Tang Eng, 
Goang Jau Shing, Chien Shing, PFP Taiwan, Yieh Mau, Yieh Trading, and 
Yieh Loong. In November 2004, Tang Eng, Yieh Mau, and Yieh Loong 
reported that they did not sell or ship subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.
    Throughout this administrative review, the Department has issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Chia Far and YUSCO, and petitioners have 
submitted comments regarding the respondents' questionnaire responses. 
The petitioners have also submitted comments regarding Ta Chen and the 
Emerdex companies.
    On March 9, 2005, the Department extended the deadline for issuing 
the preliminary results in this administrative review until August 1, 
2005. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 
Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 11614 (March 9, 2005).

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order on SSSS from Taiwan are certain 
stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy 
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The 
subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is 
greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and 
that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise de-
scaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed 
(e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that 
it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such 
processing.

[[Page 46138]]

    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in 
the HTSUS at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 
7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 
7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 
7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 
7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 
7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 
7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 
7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 
7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 
7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 
7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 
7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 
7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 
7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 
7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 
7220.90.00.80.
    Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes, the Department's written description of the 
merchandise covered by this order is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Sheet 
and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or 
otherwise de-scaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) 
plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 
4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a 
prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 
mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled 
product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled 
(``cold-reduced''), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a 
thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 
percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the 
manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, ``Additional 
U.S. Note'' 1(d).
    In response to comments by interested parties, the Department also 
determined that certain specialty stainless steel products were 
excluded from the scope of the investigation and the subsequent order. 
These excluded products are described below.
    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils 
containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 
1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent 
manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 
percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur 
of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of 
vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more 
than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper 
valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield 
strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a 
hardness (``Hv'') of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most 
commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a 
specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension 
assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 
302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 
and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 
microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension 
foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with 
a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, 
with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit 
residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection and flatness of 1.6 mm 
over 685 mm length.
    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is 
also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip 
in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 
microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure 
for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by 
weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 
1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 
19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of 
no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, 
lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total 
rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron. 
Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also 
excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel 
strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 
percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, 
and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic 
remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 
50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic 
sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such 
as ``Arnokrome III.'' ``Arnokrome III'' is a trademark of the Arnold 
Engineering Company.
    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the 
scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic 
stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and 
Materials (``ASTM'') specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 
percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most 
notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a 
melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture 
limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. 
This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons 
for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for 
railway locomotives. The product is currently available under 
proprietary trade names such as ``Gilphy 36.'' ``Gilphy 36'' is a 
trademark of Imphy, S.A.
    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is 
also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile 
stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering 
System (``UNS'') as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 
13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, 
silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, 
with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or 
less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve 
aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and 
ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with 
elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally 
provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 
25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of 
television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade 
names such as ``Durphynox 17.'' ``Durphynox 17'' is a trademark of 
Imphy, S.A.
    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain 
industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also 
excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel 
strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., 
carpet knives). This steel is similar to AISI grade 420, but 
containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and

[[Page 46139]]

1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 
and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This 
steel is sold under proprietary names such as ``GIN4 Mo.'' The second 
excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and 
contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon 
of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 
percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more 
than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 
carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is 
``GIN5'' steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition 
similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, 
molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of 
between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 
percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no 
more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of 
more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied 
as, for example, ``GIN6.'' This list of uses is illustrative and 
provided for descriptive purposes only. ``GIN4 Mo,'' ``GIN5'' and 
``GIN6'' are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.

Partial Preliminary Rescission of Review

    Seven respondents, Ta Chen, Yieh Mau, Chain Chon, Tung Mung, Tang 
Eng, Yieh Loong, and China Steel, certified to the Department that they 
did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. 
The Department subsequently obtained CBP information in order to 
substantiate the respondents' claims. See Memorandum From Melissa 
Blackledge To The File, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Data Query 
Results, dated August 1, 2005. Thus, the evidence on the record does 
not indicate that Ta Chen, Yieh Mau, Chain Chon, Tung Mung, Tang Eng, 
Yieh Loong, or China Steel exported subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec.  
351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are 
preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Ta Chen, Yieh Mau, 
Chain Chon, Tung Mung, Tang Eng, Yieh Loong, and China Steel. See, 
e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 
FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998); Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Columbia; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 14, 1997).

Partial Final Rescission of Review

    On October 27, 2004, the Department issued a letter to petitioners 
noting that while 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.213 provides that domestic 
interested parties may request a review of ``specified individual 
exporters or producers covered by the order,'' record information 
indicates the Emerdex companies are U.S. corporations located in 
California, rather than producers or exporters covered by the order on 
SSSS from Taiwan.\3\ See also petitioners' September 10, 2004, 
submission to the Department. Therefore, we informed petitioners that 
the Department intends to rescind the instant review with respect to 
the Emerdex companies. Petitioners, however, claim that the following 
record information supports their contention that ``Emerdex'' is a 
Taiwanese exporter, supplier, or producer of subject merchandise: (1) a 
2003 Dun & Bradstreet Business Information Report for Emerdex Stainless 
Flat Roll Products Inc. (``Emerdex Flat Roll'') indicating the company 
``operates blast furnaces or steel mills, specializing in the 
manufacture of stainless steel,'' (2) Emerdex Flat Roll's 2003 U.S. 
income tax return indicating at least 25% of the company is owned by 
someone in Taiwan, 3) the 2002 financial statement of Ta Chen showing 
the second largest accounts payable balance for the company was owed to 
Emerdex. According to petitioners, the principal input used by Ta Chen 
in production is SSSS.\4\ Based upon the above information, petitioners 
urge the Department to explore this matter further by issuing a series 
of questions regarding affiliation to any parent company that Emerdex 
might have in Taiwan (via Emerdex Flat Roll or Ta Chen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Neither petitioners, nor the Department, were able to locate 
any company in Taiwan named ``Emerdex'' or with ``Emerdex'' as part 
of its name.
    \4\ Ta Chen has been a respondent in the antidumping duty 
proceeding involving stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings from 
Taiwan. In the 2002-2003 segment of that proceeding, the Department 
found Ta Chen to be affiliated to the Emerdex companies (these 
companies imported stainless steel-butt-weld pipe fittings into the 
United States). As noted above, Ta Chen is also a respondent in the 
instant administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding petitioners' arguments, we find it appropriate to 
rescind the instant review with respect to the Emerdex companies rather 
than undertake an examination of those U.S. companies, and their 
affiliates, in order to determine the appropriate respondent. The party 
requesting an administrative review ``must bear the relatively small 
burden imposed on it by the regulation to name names'' of the 
appropriate respondent in its review request. See Floral Trade Council 
of Davis, California v. United States, et al., 1993 WL 534598 (December 
22, 1993). See also Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic 
of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 
58306, 58307 (October 9, 2003) (the Department rescinded the review 
noting that the party requested a review of a U.S. importer, rather 
than an exporter or producer of subject merchandise). Where this burden 
has not been met, the ``ITA is not required to conduct an investigation 
to determine who should be investigated in an administrative review 
proceeding.'' See Floral Trade Council of Davis, California v. United 
States et al., 707 F. Supp. 1343, 1345 (February 16, 1989). Moreover, 
petitioners' failure to name the actual parties to be reviewed has 
deprived importers of notice that their imports could be affected by 
the review. As the Court of International Trade (``CIT'') stated, the 
Department's initiation notice ``serves to notify any interested party 
that the antidumping duty rate on goods obtained from exporters named 
in the notice of initiation for an administrative review may be 
affected by the outcome of that review. So apprised, ``importers could 
participate in the administrative review in an effort to ensure that 
the calculation of antidumping duties on those products was correct.'' 
See Transcom, Inc. and L&S Bearing Company v. United States, 182 F.3d 
876, 880 (June 16, 1999). Here, no such notice was given because 
petitioners failed to name the foreign exporters or producers to be 
reviewed.
    Lastly, we note that none of the information placed on the record 
by petitioners demonstrates that there is an Emerdex parent corporation 
in Taiwan that produces or exports subject merchandise. The Dunn & 
Bradstreet report and Ta Chen's accounts payable balance relate to the 
Emerdex companies located in California, not companies located in 
Taiwan.\5\

[[Page 46140]]

Furthermore, Emerdex Flat Roll's 2003 U.S. tax return does not state 
that the company has a parent corporation in Taiwan. Rather, the tax 
return simply notes that during the tax year, a ``foreign person'' in 
Taiwan owned, directly or indirectly, either 25% or more of the 
company's voting shares or 25% or more of the total value of all 
classes of the company's stock. The information in the tax return does 
not indicate that the ``foreign person'' is a company, let alone a 
company that produces or exports subject merchandise. Accordingly, the 
Department is rescinding the instant review with respect to the Emerdex 
companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Additionally, the Department has obtained information from 
Dunn & Bradstreet indicating that Emerdex Flat Roll is a wholesaler 
of stainless steel products, not a producer. See the Memorandum From 
Melissa Blackledge To The File regarding the Dun & Bradstreet 
Business Information Report submitted by Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC 
on behalf of petitioners. The information the Department obtained 
from Dunn & Bradstreet is consistent with the business activity code 
reported for Emerdex Flat Roll in the company's 2003 U.S. income tax 
return and the information reported to the Department in the 2002-
2003 administrative review of stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings from Taiwan. See Ta Chen's January 23, 2004, supplemental 
questionnaire response (at B-2) from the stainless steel butt-weld 
pipe fittings case (on November 5, 2004, at Enclosure 6, petitioners 
placed this page on the record of the instant review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), provides that if any interested party: (A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department, (B) fails to 
provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information or in the form or manner requested, (C) significantly 
impedes an antidumping investigation, or (D) provides such information 
but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject 
to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in making 
its 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 request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all or part of the original and 
subsequent responses, as appropriate.
    The evidence on the record of this review establishes that, 
pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of total facts 
available is warranted in determining the dumping margin for PFP 
Taiwan, Yieh Trading, Goang Jau Shing, and Chien Shing, because these 
companies failed to provide requested information. Specifically, these 
companies failed to respond to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire.
    On November 10, 2004, the Department informed these companies by 
letter that failure to respond to the requests for information by 
November 17, 2004, may result in the use of AFA in determining their 
dumping margins. These four manufacturers/exporters, however, did not 
respond to the Department's November 10, 2004, letter. Because these 
respondents failed to provide any of the necessary information 
requested by the Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we have based the dumping margins for these companies on the facts 
otherwise available.

Use of Adverse Inferences

    Section 776(b) of the Act states that if the Department ``finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the 
administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority 
or the Commission ..., in reaching the applicable determination under 
this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of 
that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' See 
also Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). 
Section 776(b) of the Act goes on to note that an adverse inference may 
include reliance on information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a 
final determination in the investigation under this title; (3) any 
previous review under section 751 or determination under section 753; 
or (4) any other information on the record.
    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 SAA at 870; Borden, Inc. v. United States, 
4 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (CIT 1998); Mannesmannrohren-Werke AG v. United 
States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (CIT 1999). The Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit (``CAFC''), in Nippon Steel Corporation v. United 
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003), provided an explanation 
of the ``failure to act to the best of its ability'' standard, holding 
that the Department need not show intentional conduct existed on the 
part of the respondent, but merely that a ``failure to cooperate to the 
best of a respondent's ability'' existed, i.e., information was not 
provided ``under circumstances in which it is reasonable to conclude 
that less than full cooperation has been shown.'' Id.
    The record shows that PFP Taiwan, Yieh Trading, Goang Jau Shing, 
and Chien Shing failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities, 
within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. As noted above, PFP 
Taiwan, Yieh Trading, Goang Jau Shing, and Chien Shing failed to 
provide any response to the Department's requests for information. As a 
general matter, it is reasonable for the Department to assume that 
these companies possessed the records necessary to participate in this 
review; however, by not supplying the information the Department 
requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their 
abilities. As these companies have failed to cooperate to the best of 
their abilities, we are applying an adverse inference in determining 
their dumping margin pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA, we 
have assigned these companies a dumping margin of 21.10 percent, which 
is the highest appropriate dumping margin from this or any prior 
segment of the instant proceeding. This rate was the highest petition 
margin and was used as AFA in a number of the segments in the instant 
proceeding. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Taiwan; 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 6682 (February 13, 2002) (``1999-2000 AR of SSSS from 
Taiwan''). See also Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from 
Taiwan: Notice of Court Decision, 67 FR 63887 (October 16, 2002).
    The Department notes that while the highest dumping margin 
calculated during this or any prior segment of the instant proceeding 
is 36.44 percent, as argued by petitioners, this margin represents a 
combined rate applied to a channel transaction in the investigative 
phase of this proceeding, and it is based on middleman dumping by Ta 
Chen. See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, 
(Nov. 29, 2000) affirmed by 219 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1345 (CIT 2002), 
aff'd 354 F. 3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where circumstances 
indicate that a particular dumping margin is not appropriate as AFA, 
the Department will disregard the margin and determine another more 
appropriate one as facts available. See Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 
6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest 
dumping margin for use as AFA because the margin was based on another 
company's uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an unusually 
high dumping margin). Because a dumping

[[Page 46141]]

margin based on middleman dumping would be inappropriate, given that 
the record does not indicate that any of PFP Taiwan's, Yieh Trading's, 
Goang Jau Shing's, and Chien Shing's exports to the United States 
during the POR involved a middleman, the Department has, consistent 
with previous reviews, continued to use as AFA the highest dumping 
margin from any segment of the proceeding for a producer's direct 
exports to the United States, without middleman dumping, which is 21.10 
percent.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires that the Department, to the 
extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from independent 
sources that are reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is 
defined as ``{i{time} nformation derived from the petition that gave 
rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning 
the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 
concerning the subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA clarifies 
that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy itself that 
the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 
870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in 
Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial 
Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 
1996), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to 
the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information.
    The rate of 21.10 percent constitutes secondary information. The 
Department corroborated the information used to establish the 21.10 
percent rate in the less than fair value (``LTFV'') investigation in 
this proceeding, finding the information to be both reliable and 
relevant. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, 64 FR 
30592, 30592 (June 8, 1999) (``Final Determination''); see also 1999-
2000 AR of SSSS from Taiwan, 67 FR 6682, 6684 and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 28. Nothing on the record of this 
instant administrative review calls into question the reliability of 
this rate. Furthermore, with respect to the relevancy aspect of 
corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at 
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin not relevant. As discussed above, in selecting this margin, the 
Department considered whether a margin derived from middleman dumping 
was relevant to PFP Taiwan's, Yieh Trading's, Goang Jau Shing's, and 
Chien Shing's commercial experience, and determined the use of this 
margin was inappropriate. The Department has determined that there is 
no evidence on the record of this case, however, which would render the 
21.10 percent dumping margin irrelevant. Thus, we find that the rate of 
21.10 percent is sufficiently corroborated for purposes of the instant 
administrative review.

Affiliation

YUSCO

    During the course of this administrative review, petitioners have 
argued that YUSCO is under common control with certain companies, and 
thus it is affiliated with these companies. Specifically, petitioners 
contend that through direct and indirect interests and Board of 
Director positions associated with YUSCO's Chairman, Mr. Lin, YUSCO is 
affiliated with a number of companies, including Yieh Loong and China 
Steel. As has been the case in prior segments of this proceeding, we 
find that the facts on the record do not demonstrate that YUSCO is 
affiliated with Yieh Loong or China Steel. Nor do we conclude that the 
facts support a finding that YUSCO is affiliated with any of the other 
companies identified by petitioners. Because our discussion of this 
issue necessitates the use of business proprietary information, we have 
addressed the issue in the memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, covering the 
subject of affiliation.

Chia Far

    During the first administrative review in this proceeding, the 
Department found Chia Far and its U.S. reseller, Lucky Medsup Inc. 
(``Lucky Medsup''), to be affiliated by way of a principal-agency 
relationship. The Department primarily based its finding on: (1) a 
document evidencing the existence of a principal-agent relationship, 
(2) Chia Far's degree of involvement in sales between Lucky Medsup and 
its customers, (3) evidence indicating Chia Far knew the identity of 
Lucky Medsup's customers, and the customers were aware of Chia Far, (4) 
Lucky Medsup's operations as a ``go-through'' who did not maintain any 
inventory or further manufacture products, and (5) Chia Far's inability 
to provide any documents to support its claim that the document 
evidencing the principal-agent relationship was not valid during the 
POR. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 6682 (February 13, 2002) and the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 23 (upheld by CIT in Chia Far Industrial 
Factory Co. Ltd. v. United States, et al., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1356 
(August 2, 2004)). The Department has continued to treat Chia Far and 
Lucky Medsup as affiliated parties throughout this proceeding.
    In the instant administrative review, however, Chia Far contends 
that it is no longer affiliated with Lucky Medsup because: (1) there is 
no cross-ownership between Chia Far and Lucky Medsup and no sharing of 
officers or directors, (2) Lucky Medsup's owner operates independently 
of Chia Far as a middleman, (3) Lucky Medsup's transactions with Chia 
Far are at arm's length, (4) there are no exclusive distribution 
contracts between Lucky Medsup and Chia Far (the one that existed in 
1994, was terminated in 1995), and (5) Lucky Medsup is not obligated to 
sell Chia Far's merchandise and Chia Far is not obligated to sell 
through Lucky Medsup in the United States.
    We, however, find the fact pattern in the instant review mirrors 
that which existed when the Department found the parties to be 
affiliated. First and foremost, Chia Far could not provide any 
documents in response to the Department's request that it demonstrate 
that the agency agreement was terminated and the principal-agent 
relationship no longer exists. See Chia Far's March 25, 2002, 
supplemental questionnaire response at page 1. Furthermore, Chia Far's 
degree of involvement in Lucky Medsup's U.S. sales is similar to that 
found in prior reviews. Specifically, Chia Far played a role in the 
sales negotiation process with the end-customer (Chia Far was informed 
of the identity of the end-customers and the sales terms that they had 
requested before it set its price to Luck Medsup), Lucky Medsup's sales 
order confirmation identifies Chia Far as the manufacturer, and Chia 
Far shipped the merchandise directly to end-customers and provided 
technical assistance directly to certain end-customers. Lastly, as was 
true in prior segments of this proceeding, during the. instant POR 
Lucky Medsup did not maintain inventory or further manufacture SSSS. 
Therefore, we continue to find that Chia Far is affiliated with Lucky 
Medsup.

[[Page 46142]]

Identifying Home Market Sales

    Section 773 (a)(1)(B) of the Act defines NV as the price at which 
foreign like product is first sold (or, in the absence of a sale, 
offered for sale) for consumption in the exporting country (home 
market), in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course 
of trade and, to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as 
the export price (``EP'') or constructed export price (``CEP''). In 
implementing this provision, the CIT has found that sales should be 
reported as home market sales if the producer ``knew or should have 
known that the merchandise {it sold{time}  was for home consumption 
based upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the 
sales.'' See Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. & Yieh United Steel Corp. 
v. United States and Allegheny Ludlum Corp., et al., Slip Op. 01-83 
(CIT 2001); citing INA Walzlager Schaeffler KG v. United States, 957 F. 
Supp. 251 (1997). Conversely, if the producer knew or should have known 
the merchandise that it sold to home market customers was not for home 
market consumption, it should exclude such sales from its home market 
sales database. Even though a producer may sell merchandise destined 
for exportation by a home market customer, if that merchandise is used 
to produce non-subject merchandise in the home market, it is consumed 
in the home market and such sales will be considered to be home market 
sales. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Plate Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel 
Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Korea, 
58 FR 37176, 37182 (July 9, 1993).
    The issue of whether respondents have properly reported home market 
sales has arisen in each of the prior segments of the instant 
proceeding. It is also an issue in the instant administrative review.

YUSCO

    Throughout the instant administrative review, petitioners have 
questioned the accuracy of YUSCO's home market sales database. 
Specifically, petitioners claim that YUSCO has not properly addressed 
the very important part of the Department's knowledge test - 
consumption of YUSCO's merchandise in Taiwan before exportation. As a 
result, petitioners maintain that the Department cannot rely upon the 
sales databases submitted by YUSCO and must base the company's dumping 
margin on total AFA. See petitioners' April 14, 2005, and April 28, 
2005, submissions to the Department.
    For these preliminary results, we have not rejected YUSCO's sales 
databases in favor of total AFA because information on the record 
indicates that YUSCO knew, or should have known, the merchandise that 
it sold was for consumption in the home market based upon the 
particular facts and circumstances surrounding the sales. Thus, there 
is information on the record that allows the Department to identify 
YUSCO's home market sales. Specifically, YUSCO reported that it sold 
SSSS to a certain home market customer who was planning to further 
process the SSSS into non-subject merchandise and then export the 
merchandise. Further, YUSCO delivered the merchandise to this customer 
at a location that had facilities to further process the SSSS into non-
subject merchandise. YUSCO reported these sales in its HM3 database. 
See YUSCO's April 4, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response at 11. 
Because the record indicates that YUSCO knew at the time of sale that 
this merchandise would be consumed in the home market, the Department 
has preliminarily considered sales to this home market customer to be 
home market sales. In its HM4 database YUSCO reported its sales to an 
affiliated home market customer, who has the ability to further process 
the SSSS into non-subject merchandise but did not inform YUSCO about 
its plans regarding possible further manufacturing prior to 
exportation. YUSCO delivered these sales to the affiliated customer's 
processing plant. See YUSCO's November 22, 2004, Sections B-C 
questionnaire response at 2, 3. Consistent with the approach taken in 
the prior administrative review of this order, we have considered 
YUSCO's sales to an affiliated home market customer delivered to the 
customer's further processing plant to be home market sales.

Chia Far

    In its November 15, 2004, questionnaire response, Chia Far stated 
that it has reason to believe that some of the home market customers to 
whom it sold SSSS during the POR may have exported the merchandise. 
Specifically, Chia Far indicated that it shipped some of the SSSS it 
sold to home market customers during the POR to a container yard or 
placed the SSSS in an ocean shipping container at the home market 
customer's request. Chia Far stated that even though the merchandise 
was containerized or sent to a container yard, it could not prove the 
merchandise was exported to a third country, and therefore, it included 
those sales in its reported home market sales. Although Chia Far stated 
that it does not definitively know whether the SSSS in question will be 
exported, the Department has preliminarily determined that, based the 
fact that these sales were sent to a container yard or placed in a 
container by Chia Far at the request of the home market customer, Chia 
Far should have known that the SSSS in question was not for consumption 
in the home market. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily 
excluded these sales from Chia Far's home market sales database.

Comparison Methodology

    In order to determine whether the respondents sold SSSS to the 
United States at prices less than NV, the Department compared the EP 
and CEP of individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of 
sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. 
See section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act. Section 771(16) of the Act defines foreign like product as 
merchandise that is identical or similar to subject merchandise and 
produced by the same person and in the same country as the subject 
merchandise. Thus, we considered all products covered by the scope of 
the order, that were produced by the same person and in the same 
country as the subject merchandise, and sold by YUSCO and Chia Far in 
the comparison market during the POR, to be foreign like products, for 
the purpose of determining appropriate product comparisons to SSSS sold 
in the United States. During the POR, Chia Far sold subject merchandise 
and foreign like product that it made from hot- and cold-rolled 
stainless steel coils (products covered by the scope of the order) 
purchased from unaffiliated parties. Chia Far further processed the 
hot- and cold-rolled stainless steel coils by performing one or more of 
the following procedures: cold-rolling, bright annealing, surface 
finishing/shaping, slitting. We did not consider Chia Far to be the 
producer of the merchandise under review if it performed insignificant 
processing on the coils (e.g., annealing, slitting, surface finishing). 
See Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 74495 (December 14, 2004) 
and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 4 
(listing painting, slitting, finishing, pickling,

[[Page 46143]]

oiling, and annealing as minor processing for flat-rolled products). 
Furthermore, we did not consider Chia Far to be the producer of the 
cold-rolled products that it sold if it was not the first party to cold 
roll the coils. The cold-rolling process changes the surface quality 
and mechanical properties of the product and produces useful 
combinations of hardness, strength, stiffness, and ductility. Further 
cold-rolling does not appear to change the fundamental character of a 
product that has already been cold-rolled. Thus, we considered the 
original party that cold-rolled the product to be its producer.
    The Department compared U.S. sales to sales made in the comparison 
market within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from 
three months prior to the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise made in the 
comparison market in the ordinary course of trade, the Department 
compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product 
made in the ordinary course of trade. In making product comparisons, 
the Department selected identical and most similar foreign like 
products based on the physical characteristics reported by the 
respondents in the following order of importance: grade, hot- or cold-
rolled, gauge, surface finish, metallic coating, non-metallic coating, 
width, temper, and edge. Where there were no appropriate sales of the 
foreign like product to compare to a U.S. sale, we compared the price 
of the U.S. sale to constructed value (``CV''), in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Export Price and Constructed Export Price

    The Department based the price of each of YUSCO's U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise on EP, as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, 
because the merchandise was sold, prior to importation, to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States, and CEP was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts of the record. We calculated EP using packed prices 
to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States from which we deducted, 
where applicable, inland freight expenses (from YUSCO's plant to the 
port of exportation), international freight expenses, brokerage and 
handling charges, container handling fees, and certification fees in 
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
    We based the price of Chia Far's U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
on EP or CEP, as appropriate. Specifically, when Chia Far sold subject 
merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to 
importation, and CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of 
the record, we based the price of the sale on EP, in accordance with 
section 772 (a) of the Act. On the other hand, when Chia Far sold 
subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States 
after importation through its U.S. affiliate, Lucky Medsup, we based 
the price of the sale on CEP, in accordance with section 773(b) of the 
Act. Although Chia Far based the date of sale for its EP and CEP 
transactions on the order confirmation date, in response to questions 
from the Department, Chia Far reported information showing that the 
material terms of U.S. sales changed after the order confirmation date 
(e.g., changes to the ordered quantity in excess of the allowable 
variation). See Chia Far's March 18, 2005, supplemental questionnaire 
response at page 5 and attachment C-21. See also Chia Far's December 
13, 2004, supplemental questionnaire response at page 6 where Chia Far 
indicated the material terms of U.S. sales can change after the initial 
agreement.
    Normally, the Department considers the respondent's invoice date as 
recorded in its business records to be the date of sale unless a date 
other than the invoice date better reflects the date on which the 
company establishes the material terms of sale. See 19 C.F.R. Sec.  
351.401(i). Given that changes to the material terms of sale occurred 
after the order confirmation date, the record does not support using 
the reported date of sale. Therefore, we have preliminarily used 
invoice date as the date of sale for Chia Far's EP and CEP 
transactions. However, consistent with the Department's practice, where 
the invoice was issued after the date of shipment to the first 
unaffiliated U.S. customer, we relied upon the date of shipment as the 
date of sale. See Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products From Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 12927, 12935 (March 16, 1999), citing 
Certain Cold-Rolled and Corrosion Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
From Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 
63 FR 13170, 13172-73 (March 18, 1998) (``in these final results we 
have followed the Department's methodology from the final results of 
the third reviews, and have based date of sale on invoice date from the 
U.S. affiliate, unless that date was subsequent to the date of shipment 
from Korea, in which case that shipment date is the date of sale.'').
    We calculated EP using packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in 
the United States from which we deducted, where applicable, foreign 
inland freight expense (from Chia Far's plant to the port of 
exportation), brokerage and handling expense, international ocean 
freight expense, marine insurance expense, container handling charges, 
and harbor construction fees. Additionally, we added to the starting 
price an amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of 
the Act. We calculated CEP using packed prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States from which we deducted 
foreign inland freight expense (from Chia Far's plant to the port of 
exportation), brokerage and handling expense, international ocean 
freight expense, marine and inland insurance expense, container 
handling charges, harbor construction fees, other U.S. transportation 
expenses and U.S. duty. Additionally, we added to the starting price an 
amount for duty drawback pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. 
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from the 
starting price selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including direct and indirect selling 
expenses. Furthermore, we deducted from the starting price the profit 
allocated to expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (d)(2) of 
the Act in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. We 
computed profit by deducting from total revenue realized on sales in 
both the U.S. and comparison markets, all expenses associated with 
those sales. We then allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect 
to U.S. economic activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to 
total expenses for both the U.S. and comparison markets.

Normal Value

    After testing home market viability, whether comparison-market 
sales to affiliates were at arm's-length prices, and whether 
comparison-market sales were at below-cost prices, we calculated NV as 
noted in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-CV 
Comparisons'' sections of this notice.
1. Home Market Viability
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to determine 
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to 
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume 
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or 
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
separately compared the aggregate volume of YUSCO's and Chia Far's home 
market sales of the foreign like

[[Page 46144]]

product to the aggregate volume of their U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise. Because the aggregate volume of YUSCO's and Chia Far's 
home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five 
percent of the aggregate volume of their respective U.S. sales of 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market is viable for 
each of these respondents and have used the home market as the 
comparison market.
2. Arm's-Length Test
    YUSCO reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated 
and unaffiliated end users and distributors/retailers. The Department 
will calculate NV based on sales to an affiliated party only if it is 
satisfied that the prices charged to the affiliated party are 
comparable to the prices charged to parties not affiliated with the 
producer, i.e., the sales are at arm's-length. See section 773(f)(2) of 
the Act and 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.403(c). Where the home market prices 
charged to an affiliated customer were, on average, found not to be 
arm's-length prices, sales to the affiliated customer were excluded 
from our analysis. To test whether YUSCO's sales to affiliates were 
made at arm's-length prices, the Department compared the starting 
prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all 
movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant to 19 
C.F.R. Sec.  351.403(c), and in accordance with the Department's 
practice, when the prices charged to affiliated parties were, on 
average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to 
unaffiliated parties for merchandise comparable to that sold to the 
affiliated party, we determined that the sales to the affiliated party 
were at arm's-length prices. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 
Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (November 15, 
2002). YUSCO's affiliated home market customer did not pass the arm's-
length test. Therefore, we have disregarded YUSCO's sales to its 
affiliated home market customer in favor of that customer's downstream 
sales of foreign like product to its first unaffiliated customer.
3. Cost of Production (``COP'') Analysis
    In the previous administrative review in this proceeding, the 
Department determined that YUSCO and Chia Far sold the foreign like 
product in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise and excluded such sales from the calculation of NV. Based 
on the results of the previous administrative review, the Department 
determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
during the instant POR, YUSCO and Chia Far sold the foreign like 
product in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise. See section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. As a result, the 
Department initiated a COP inquiry for both YUSCO and Chia Far.
A. Calculation of COP
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, for each unique 
foreign like product sold by the respondents during the POR, we 
calculated a weighted-average COP based on the sum of the respondent's 
materials and fabrication costs, home market selling general and 
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, including interest expenses, and 
packing costs. We made the following adjustments to YUSCO's cost data: 
(1) we increased the reported cost of inputs purchased from affiliated 
suppliers to reflect the higher of the transfer price or market price 
as required by section 773(f)(2) of the Act, and (2) we adjusted 
YUSCO's reported general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio to 
exclude certain income. See Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From 
Taiwan Yieh United Steel Corp., Ltd. (August 1, 2005) (``YUSCO 
Preliminary Analysis Memorandum''). See also Analysis Memorandum for 
the Preliminary Results of Review for Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip 
in Coils From Taiwan - Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (August 1, 
2005) (``Chia Far Preliminary Analysis Memorandum'').
B. Test of Home Market Prices
    In order to determine whether sales were made at prices below the 
COP, on a product-specific basis we compared each respondent's 
weighted-average COPs, adjusted as noted above, to the prices of its 
home market sales of foreign like product, as required under section 
773(b) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of 
the Act, in determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices less than the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) 
in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and (2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. We compared the COP to home market sales prices, less 
any applicable movement charges and discounts.
C. Results of the COP Test
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product were made at prices less than the COP during the POR, we 
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities'' 
and within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 
and (C) of the Act. In such cases, because we used POR average costs, 
we also determined, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 
that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time. Based on this test, we 
disregarded below-cost sales. Where all sales of a specific product 
were at prices below the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    Where it was appropriate to base NV on prices, we used the prices 
at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in 
Taiwan, in usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of 
trade, and, to the extent possible, at the same level of trade 
(``LOT'') as the comparison EP or CEP sale.
    We based NV on the prices of home market sales to unaffiliated 
customers and to affiliated customers to whom sales were made at arm's-
length prices. We excluded from our analysis home market sales of 
merchandise identified by the Department as having been manufactured by 
parties other than the respondents. Merchandise manufactured by parties 
other than the respondents was not sold in the U.S. market during the 
POR. We made price adjustments, where appropriate, for physical 
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. In accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A), 
(B), and (C) of the Act, where appropriate, we deducted from the 
starting price rebates, warranty expenses, movement expenses, home 
market packing costs, credit expenses and other direct selling expenses 
and added U.S. packing costs and, for NVs compared to EPs, credit 
expenses, and other direct selling expenses. In accordance with the 
Department's practice, where all contemporaneous matches to a U.S. sale 
resulted in difference-in-merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent 
of the cost of manufacturing the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 
when

[[Page 46145]]

we were unable to compare the U.S. sale to a home market sale of an 
identical or similar product. For each unique SSSS product sold by the 
respondents in the United States during the POR, we calculated a 
weighted-average CV based on the sum of the respondent's materials and 
fabrication costs, SG&A expenses, including interest expenses, packing 
costs, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 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 Taiwan. We based selling expenses on weighted-average actual home 
market direct and indirect selling expenses. In calculating CV, we 
adjusted the reported costs as described in the COP section above.

Level of Trade

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market 
at the same LOT as the EP or CEP sales. For NV, the LOT is based upon 
the level of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when 
NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses 
and profit. For EP sales, the U.S. LOT is also based upon the level of 
the starting price sale, which is usually from the exporter to the 
importer. For CEP sales, it is the level of the constructed sale from 
the exporter to the importer. The Department adjusts CEP, pursuant to 
section 772(d) of the Act, prior to performing the LOT analysis, as 
articulated by 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.412. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F.3d, 1301, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than the EP or 
CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling 
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the 
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is 
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis 
for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP 
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(A)(7)(B) of 
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Carbon Steel Plate from South 
Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    In determining whether separate LOTs exist, we obtained information 
from YUSCO and Chia Far regarding the marketing stages for the reported 
U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling 
activities performed by YUSCO and Chia Far for each channel of 
distribution. Generally, if the reported LOTs are the same, the 
functions and activities of the seller at each level should be similar. 
Conversely, if a party reports that LOTs are different for different 
groups of sales, the selling functions and activities of the seller for 
each group should be dissimilar.
    YUSCO reported that it sold foreign like product in the home market 
through one channel of distribution and at one LOT. See YUSCO's 
November 22, 2004, Questionnaire Response at B-29. In this channel of 
distribution, YUSCO provided the following selling functions: inland 
freight, invoicing, packing, warranty services, and technical advice. 
Because there is only one sales channel in the home market involving 
similar functions for all sales, we preliminarily determine that there 
is one LOT in the home market.
    In addition, YUSCO reported that it sold subject merchandise to 
customers in the United States through one channel of distribution and 
at one LOT. See YUSCO's November 15, 2004, Questionnaire Response at A-
14. In this channel of distribution, YUSCO provided the following 
selling functions: arranging freight and delivery, invoicing, and 
packing. YUSCO did not incur any other expenses in the United States 
for its U.S. sales. Because the one sales channel in the United States 
involves similar functions for all sales, we preliminarily determine 
that there is one LOT in the United States.
    Based upon our analysis of the selling functions performed by 
YUSCO, we preliminarily determine that YUSCO sold the foreign like 
product and subject merchandise at the same LOT. Although YUSCO 
provided technical advice and warranty services in the home market, but 
not in the U.S. market, these services were rarely provided in the home 
market and thus, there is no significant difference between the selling 
functions performed in the home and U.S. markets. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that a LOT adjustment is not warranted.
    Chia Far reported that it sold subject merchandise in the home 
market to two types of customers, distributors and end users, through 
one channel of distribution. Chia Far provided the same selling 
functions for home market sales to both customer categories, such as 
providing technical advice, making freight and delivery arrangements, 
processing orders, providing after-sale warehousing, providing after-
sale packing services, performing warranty services, and post-sale 
processing. See Chia Far's September 22, 2004, Section A Questionnaire 
Response at Exhibit A-6. Based on the similarity of the selling 
functions and the fact that one channel of distribution serviced the 
two types of customers, we preliminarily determine that there is one 
LOT in the home market.
    For the U.S. market, Chia Far reported that it made sales to 
unaffiliated distributors directly and through its U.S. affiliate, 
Lucky Medsup. Since the Department bases the LOT of CEP sales on the 
price in the United States after making CEP deductions under section 
772(d) of the Act, we based the LOT of Chia Far's CEP sales on the 
price after deducting selling expenses.
    Chia Far performed the same selling functions, such as arranging 
freight and delivery, providing after-sale packing services, processing 
orders, providing technical advice, and performing warranty services 
for all U.S. customers, including Lucky Medsup's customers. See Chia 
Far's September 22, 2004, Section A Questionnaire Response at Exhibit 
A-6. Based on the similarity of selling functions to the same customer 
type, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the United 
States.
    To determine whether NV is at a different LOT than the U.S. 
transactions, the Department compared home market selling activities 
with those for EP and CEP transactions. The Department made the 
comparison after deducting expenses associated with selling activities 
occurring in the United States from the CEP. See section 772(d) of the 
Act. Chia Far engaged in the following selling activities for both the 
home and U.S. markets: providing technical advice, warranty services, 
freight and delivery arrangements, packing, and order processing. See 
AQR at Exhibit A-6 and A-7. Chia Far's selling activities in the home 
and U.S. markets differed in that additional activity was required to 
ship subject merchandise to U.S. customers (i.e., arranging 
international freight and marine insurance) and it engaged in post-sale 
processing and post-sale warehousing in the home market, but not the 
U.S. market. While Chia Far may have engaged in certain selling 
activities in the home market that it did not perform in the U.S.

[[Page 46146]]

market, according to Chia Far, the significance of these activities is 
minimal. Based on the foregoing, the Department determined that the 
differences between the home and U.S. market selling activities do not 
support a finding that Chia Far's sales in the home market were made at 
a different LOT than U.S. sales.
    In its questionnaire response, Chia Far requested a CEP offset 
(noting that there is only one LOT in the home market). See AQR at A-
14. The Department will grant a CEP offset if NV is at a more advanced 
LOT than the CEP transactions and there is no basis for determining 
whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability (e.g., a LOT adjustment is not possible because there is 
only one LOT in the home market). Here, the Department has not found 
the NV LOT to be more advanced than the CEP LOT and thus, it has not 
granted Chia Far a CEP offset.

Currency Conversion

    Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we converted amounts 
expressed in foreign currencies into U.S. dollar amounts 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 this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 
2003, through June 30, 2004:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
           Manufacturer/Exporter/Reseller                   Margin
                                                         (percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yieh United Steel Corporation (``YUSCO'')...........                0.00
Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (``Chia Far'')                1.37
Goang Jau Shing Enterprise Co., Ltd.................               21.10
PFP Taiwan Co., Ltd.................................               21.10
Yieh Trading Corporation............................               21.10
Chien Shing Stainless Steel Company Ltd.............               21.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.212(b)(1), where 
possible, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates 
for merchandise subject to this review. Where the importer-specific 
assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess the 
importer-specific rate uniformly on the entered customs value of all 
entries of subject merchandise made by the importer during the POR. 
Since YUSCO did not report the entered value of its sales, we 
calculated per-unit assessment rates for its merchandise by aggregating 
the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine 
whether the per-unit duty assessment rates were de minimis (i.e., less 
than 0.50 percent ad valorem), in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific 
ad valorem ratios based on the export prices. For the respondents 
receiving dumping margins based upon AFA, the Department will instruct 
CBP to liquidate entries according to the AFA ad valorem rate. The 
Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to 
CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review.

Cash Deposit Rates

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise 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 Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for each of the 
reviewed companies will be the rate listed in the final results of this 
review (except if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, 
i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that 
company), (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not 
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent review period, (3) if the 
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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 subject merchandise, and (4) the 
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 12.61 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in 
the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination, 64 FR 30592. These 
required cash deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Public Comment

    According to 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.224(b), the Department will 
disclose any calculations performed in connection with the preliminary 
results of review within 10 days of publicly announcing the preliminary 
results of review. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 
days of publication of this notice. See 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.310(c). If 
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on the preliminary results. The Department will 
consider case briefs filed by interested parties within 30 days after 
the date of publication of this notice. Also, interested parties may 
file rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs. The 
Department will consider rebuttal briefs filed not later than five days 
after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of 
the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of 
authorities. Further, we request that parties submitting written 
comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public 
version of those comments. Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of our 
analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 
120 days of publication of the preliminary results. The assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and 
future deposits of estimated duties shall be based on the final results 
of this review.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. Sec.  351.402(f)(2) 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 Act.


[[Page 46147]]


    Dated: August 1, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-4306 Filed 8-8-05; 8:45 am]
(Billing Code: 3510-DS-S)