[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12179-12183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-846]


Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-
rolled carbon steel flat products (hot-rolled steel) from Japan in 
response to a request by Ispat Inland Inc. (Ispat), a petitioner in the 
original investigation, and Nucor Corporation (Nucor), a domestic 
producer of hot-rolled steel (collectively, petitioners). Petitioners 
requested administrative reviews of Kawasaki Steel Corporation 
(Kawasaki) and JFE Steel Corporation (JFE). This review covers exports 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the period June 1, 
2004 through May 31, 2005.
    We preliminarily determine that adverse facts available should be 
applied to JFE and Kawasaki during the period of review (POR) for 
declining to participate, and for not cooperating with the Department, 
in this administrative review. Interested parties are invited to 
comment on these preliminary results. See the Preliminary Results of 
Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley or Kimberley Hunt, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3148 or (202) 482-1272, respectively.

Background

    On June 29, 1999, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on hot-rolled steel from Japan in the Federal Register. See 
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products from Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999). On June 1, 
2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing 
Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 70 FR 31422 (June 1, 2005). On June 30, 2005, 
the Department received a timely request for a review from petitioners 
covering JFE and Kawasaki. On July 21, 2005, the Department published 
its initiation notice for the administrative review of the antidumping 
order on hot-rolled steel from Japan. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation 
in Part, 70 FR 42028 (July 21, 2005).
    The Department issued Sections A, B and C of its original 
questionnaire to JFE and to Kawasaki on August 10, 2005.\1\ On 
September 7, 2005, JFE submitted a letter to the Department claiming 
that JFE Steel is the successor to Kawasaki Steel Corporation as a 
result of a corporate reorganization that was completed in April 2003 
and Kawasaki Steel Corporation, as a corporate entity, no longer 
exists. See the September 7, 2005, letter from JFE to the Department. 
On September 27, 2005, JFE informed the Department that it did not 
intend to participate in the administrative review and would not submit 
a response to the Department's questionnaire. See Letter from JFE Steel 
Corporation dated September 27, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information 
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices, 
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B 
requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the 
home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-
country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in 
non-market economy (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 investigation. Section E 
requests information on further manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period of Review

    This review covers the period June 1, 2004, through May 31, 2005.

Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order consists of certain hot-
rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular 
shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor 
coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with 
plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in 
successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in 
straight

[[Page 12180]]

lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at 
least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled 
products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width 
exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not 
less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a 
thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this 
order.
    Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully 
stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, 
high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor 
lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with 
micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added 
to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized 
as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, 
copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for 
motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such 
as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of 
this investigation, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron 
predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) 
the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the 
elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively 
indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or
1.50 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.012 percent of boron, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.41 percent of titanium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description 
provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise 
excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or 
specifically excluded from the scope of this order:
     Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of 
the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including e.g., ASTM 
specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506).
     SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
     Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
     Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon 
electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent.
     ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
     USS abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
     Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, 
physical and mechanical specifications:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      C              Mn             P             S            Si            Cr            Cu            Ni
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.14%     0.90% Max      0.025% Max    0.005% Max    0.30-0.50%    0.50-0.70%    0.20-0.40%    0.20% Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile
  Strength = 70,000-88,000 psi.

    Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical 
and mechanical specifications:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     C            Mn           P            S            Si           Cr          Cu          Ni          Mo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.16%   0.70-0.90%   0.025% Max   0.006% Max   0.30-0.50%   0.50-0.70%   0.25% Max   0.20% Max   0.21% Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile
  Strength = 105,000 psi Aim.

    Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical 
and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       C              Mn               P               S              Si             Cr             Cu             Ni          V (wt.)           Cb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.10-0.14%      1.30-1.80%      0.025% Max      0.005% Max      0.30-0.50%     0.50-0.70%     0.20-0.40%     0.20% Max      0.10% Max      0.08% Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim.

    Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical 
and mechanical specifications:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      C            Mn             P             S            Si            Cr            Cu            Ni            Nb            Ca            Al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.15% Max     1.40% Max     0.025% Max    0.010% Max    0.50% Max     1.00% Max     0.50% Max     0.20% Max     0.005% Min    Treated       0.01-0.07%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for
  thicknesses > 0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum.

     Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily 
with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to 
and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by 
either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an 
elongation percentage 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or 
(ii) a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an 
elongation percentage 25 percent for thicknesses of 2mm and above.
     Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in 
coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per

[[Page 12181]]

ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry 
restrictions as follows: 0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 
percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 
0.15 percent maximum chromium.
     Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut 
lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), 
thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed, 
with a minimum copper content of 0.20%.
    The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at 
subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 
7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 
7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 
7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 
7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 
7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 
7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 
7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 
7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 
7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Certain 
hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this order, 
including: vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; 
and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the 
following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 
7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 
7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 
7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

Analysis

Application of Facts Available

    Sections 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act) provide that, if necessary information is not available on 
the record, or if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) 
fails to provide such information in a timely matter or in the form or 
manner requested subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 
(C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; 
or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified 
as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the administering authority 
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in reaching the applicable determination.
    As noted above, JFE submitted a letter to the Department claiming 
that JFE Steel is the successor to Kawasaki Steel Corporation as a 
result of a corporate reorganization that was completed in April 2003 
and Kawasaki Steel Corporation, as a corporate entity, no longer 
exists. See the September 7, 2005, letter from JFE to the Department. 
Kawasaki did not respond to the Department's questionnaire. On 
September 27, 2005, JFE informed the Department that it would not 
participate in the administrative review and it did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire.
    JFE's refusal to participate makes it impossible for the Department 
to evaluate its successor-in-interest claim with regard to Kawasaki. As 
such, the record of this review shows that neither JFE nor Kawasaki 
have complied with the Department's request for information in this 
review. JFE's stated decision not to participate in this administrative 
review, and Kawasaki's failure to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire constitute a refusal to provide the Department with 
information necessary to conduct its antidumping analysis. (See section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act). As JFE and Kawasaki have withheld necessary 
information that has been requested by the Department, and have, in 
fact, made no effort to participate in this proceeding, the Department 
shall, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available to reach the applicable determination. JFE and Kawasaki have 
not submitted any requested information regarding this review; 
therefore sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable.
    Because of the lack of any response to the questionnaire by JFE and 
Kawasaki, the Department finds that JFE and Kawasaki have failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to comply with the 
Department's request for information. Therefore, pursuant to section 
776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an inference that is adverse 
to the interests of JFE and Kawasaki in selecting from among the facts 
otherwise available. Section 776(b) of the Act also provides that an 
adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the 
petition, the final determination in the investigation segment of the 
proceeding, a previous review under section 751 of the Act or a 
determination under section 753 of the Act, or any other information 
placed on the record. Additionally, the Statement of Administrative 
Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Doc. 
No. 103-316 at 870 (SAA) establishes that the Department may employ an 
adverse inference ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more 
favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated 
fully.'' Furthermore, in employing adverse inferences, the Department 
is instructed to consider ``the extent to which a party may benefit 
from its own lack of cooperation.'' See SAA at 870.
    By refusing to respond to the Department's questionnaire, JFE and 
Kawasaki have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. JFE and 
Kawasaki have not expressed concerns regarding the proposed deadlines, 
nor have JFE or Kawasaki requested additional time to respond to the 
questionnaire. By withholding the requested information, JFE and 
Kawasaki prevented the Department from conducting any company-specific 
analysis or calculating dumping margins for the POR. Because we find 
that JFE and Kawasaki have failed to cooperate by not complying with 
our request for information, and to ensure that JFE and Kawasaki will 
not benefit from their lack of cooperation, the Department, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, has determined an adverse inference is 
warranted with respect to JFE and Kawasaki.
    The Department's practice, when selecting an adverse facts 
available (AFA) rate from among the possible sources of information, 
has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule 
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and 
accurate information in a timely manner.'' See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 
1998). Additionally, the Department's practice has been to assign the 
highest margin determined for any party in the less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation or in any administrative review of a specific 
order to respondents who have failed to cooperate with the Department. 
See e.g., Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 
1997).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce JFE and Kawasaki's cooperation, the Department is assigning 
theses

[[Page 12182]]

companies an AFA rate of 40.26 percent ad valorem, the margin 
calculated in a section 129 redetermination of the original LTFV 
investigation using information provided by Kawasaki, and the highest 
rate determined for any party in this proceeding. See, Notice of 
Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: 
Antidumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 
Steel Products from Japan, 67 FR 71936, 71939 (December 3, 2002) (HR 
from Japan 129).
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate ``secondary information'' used for 
facts available by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its 
disposal. Secondary information is information 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. Information from a prior segment of the proceeding, such as that 
used here, constitutes secondary information. See, e.g., Anhydrous 
Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 44283 (July 28, 2003) (Anhydrous 
Sodium).
    The SAA provides that to ``corroborate'' means that the Department 
will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has 
probative value. See SAA at 870. To the extent practicable, the 
Department will examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. Unlike other types of information, such as 
input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent sources from 
which the Department can derive calculated dumping margins. The only 
source for dumping margins is administrative determinations. In an 
administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that period. 
See Anhydrous Sodium at 44284.
    In making a determination as to the relevance aspect of 
corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at 
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin not relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected 
margin is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department 
will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For 
example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the 
Department disregarded the highest margin as ``best information 
available'' (the predecessor to ``facts available'') since the margin 
was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense that 
resulted in an unusually high dumping margin. Similarly, the Department 
does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. 
v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department 
will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of 
these unusual circumstances is present here, and there is no evidence 
indicating that the margin used as facts available in this review is 
not appropriate.
    Moreover, in this case, the Department is using a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, namely the 
investigation. Because this margin is being applied to the company for 
which it was originally calculated and to a company claiming to be that 
company's successor-in-interest, the Department finds that using this 
rate is appropriate. However, in an attempt to further corroborate the 
rate, the Department conducted research in an attempt to find price 
lists or other data that might help inform the Department's 
corroboration analysis. We were unable to find any useful information. 
See the Memorandum to the File from Kimberley Hunt through Scott 
Lindsay and Barbara E. Tillman, ``Research for Corroboration for 
Preliminary Results of the Administrative Review for Hot-Rolled Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from Japan'' (February 24, 2006). Absent any other 
information, we find the calculated rate from the investigation, which 
was modified by the 129 proceeding, to be appropriate in this case and 
the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act are satisfied.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JFE Steel Corporation........................................      40.26
Kawasaki Steel Corporation...................................      40.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty Assessment

    The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions 
directly to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within 15 days of 
publication of the final results of this review. Upon issuance of the 
final results of this administrative review, the Department will 
instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries by 
applying the margin to the entered value of the merchandise.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit rates will be effective with respect to 
all shipments of hot-rolled steel from Japan entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For 
JFE and Kawasaki, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in 
the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above the cash deposit rate will be 
the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, 
or the 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) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered by this review, a prior 
review, or the LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate shall be the 
all others rate established in the section 129 redetermination of the 
LTFV investigation, which is 22.92 percent. See HR from Japan 129. 
These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Public Comment

    Pursuant to Sec.  351.309 of the Department's regulations, 
interested parties may submit written comments in response to these 
preliminary results. Unless the deadline is extended by the Department, 
case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments 
raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days 
after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit 
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 
(1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. 
Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with Sec.  351.303(f) of the Department's regulations.
    Also, pursuant to Sec.  351.310(c) of the Department's regulations, 
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested 
parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the 
case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Department specifies otherwise, 
the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for

[[Page 12183]]

submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties will be notified of the time and 
location.
    The Department will publish the final results of this 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any case or rebuttal brief, no later than 120 days after 
publication of these preliminary results, unless extended. See Sec.  
351.213(h) of the Department's regulations.

Notification to Importers

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

    Dated: March 2, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-3358 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P