Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-489-807]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Steel

Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabian Rivelis at (202) 482-3853 or

Howard Smith at (202) 482-5193, Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigation

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'').

The Petition

On March 8, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'')

received a petition filed in proper form by Florida Steel Corporation

and New Jersey Steel Corporation (``petitioners''). The petitioners

amended the petition on March 26, 1996, to exclude plain steel concrete

reinforcing bar (``rebar'').

In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioners

allege that imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (``rebar'') from

Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at

less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and

that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material

injury to, a regional industry within the United States.1

\1\ The region identified by petitioners consists of the states

of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,

Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and

Tennessee; plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

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

Since the petitioners are interested parties as defined under

section 771(9)(C) of the Act, they have standing to file a petition for

the imposition of antidumping duties.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

The petitioners allege that there is a regional industry for the

domestic like product and included data on both factors required by

section 771(4)(C) of the Act; (1) the producers within such market sell

all or almost all of their production of the like product in question

in that market, and (2) the demand in that market is not supplied, to

any substantial degree, by producers of the product in question located

elsewhere in the United States. Under section 732(c)(4)(C), if the

petitioner alleges that the industry is a regional industry, the

Department shall determine whether the petition has been filed by or on

behalf of the industry by applying the requirements set forth in

section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act on the basis of the production in the

region. Therefore, the Department has evaluated industry support for

the petition based upon production in the region.

Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires that the Department's

industry support determination, which is to be

[[Page 15040]]

made before the initiation of the investigation, be based on whether a

minimum percentage of the relevant regional industry supports the

petition. A petition meets the minimum requirements if (1) domestic

producers or workers who support the petition account for at least 25

percent of the total production of the domestic like product in the

region; and (2) those domestic producers or workers in the region

expressing support account for more than 50 percent of the production

of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry

in the region expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.

A review of the production data provided in the petition and other

information readily available to the Department indicates that the

petitioners account for more than 50 percent of the total regional

production of the like product. The Department received no expressions

of opposition to the petition from any regional producers or workers.

Accordingly, the Department determines that the petition is supported

by the regional industry.

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this investigation is all stock deformed

steel concrete reinforcing bars (``rebar'') sold in straight lengths

and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar, rolled from

billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes

(i) plain round rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked

or fabricated, and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) under item numbers 7213.10.00 and 7214.20.00. The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes.

The written description of the scope of this investigation is

dispositive.

Export Price and Normal Value

The petitioners based export price on: (1) a contracted price for

7,000 to 10,000 metric tons of deformed rebar, and (2) an offer of sale

for about 10,000 metric tons of deformed rebar. The terms of the

contract and offer are C.I.F. The petitioners made deductions to export

price for insurance, port expenses, and shipping costs.

The petitioners based NV on an offer sheet published in Turkey by

Turkish rebar producers. Since the terms are ex-factory, petitioners

made no deductions to NV. The petitioners adjusted and/or inflated the

prices on the offer sheet in an effort to make more contemporaneous

comparisons to export price. However, the Department considers the

prices as shown on the offer sheet already to be contemporaneous and

thus used them as the basis for normal value without adjustment. See

memorandum to the file dated March 26, 1996.

Based on comparisons of export price to NV, the estimated dumping

margins, as recalculated by the Department, range from 27.4 to 41.8

percent.

Fair Value Comparisons

Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to

believe that imports of rebar from Turkey are being, or are likely to

be, sold at less than fair value. If it becomes necessary at a later

date to consider the petition as a source of facts available under

section 776 of the Act, we may further review the calculations.

Critical Circumstances

The petition contains an allegation that there is a reasonable

basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with

respect to imports of subject merchandise.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will

determine that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that

critical circumstances exist if:

(A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason

of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject

merchandise, or

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was

imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the

subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was

likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, and

(B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over

a relatively short period.

The petition contains information that satisfies the criteria.

First, petitioners state that Singapore has recently imposed final

antidumping duties on rebar from Turkey. Because there is an indication

of a history of dumping and material injury, it is not necessary to

address importer knowledge.

Because we have information indicating that the first statutory

criterion is met, we must consider the second statutory criterion:

whether imports of the merchandise have been massive over a relatively

short period. According to the import statistics contained in the

petition, imports of rebar from Turkey into the region increased by 252

percent from 1993 to 1994. Based on import statistics from January

through October 1995, petitioners projected the increase of Turkish

imports into the region from 1994 to 1995 to be 51 percent.

Because the petition provides evidence that there is a history of

dumping and material injury, and that imports of subject merchandise

from Turkey have been massive over a relatively short period of time,

we find a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical

circumstances may exist and will investigate this matter further.

Initiation of Investigation

We have examined the petition on rebar and have found that it meets

the requirements of section 732 of the Act, including the requirements

concerning allegations of the material injury or threat of material

injury to a regional industry of a like product by reason of the

complained-of imports, allegedly sold at less than fair value.

Therefore, we are initiating an antidumping duty investigation to

determine whether imports of rebar from Turkey are being, or are likely

to be, sold at less than fair value on a regional basis. Unless

extended, we will make our preliminary determination by August 15,

1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the

public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives

of the Government of Turkey. We will attempt to provide a copy of the

public version of the petition to each exporter of rebar named in the

petition.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

We have notified the ITC of our initiation, as required by section

732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by April 22, 1996, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of rebar from Turkey are causing

material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a U.S.

industry. A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation

being terminated; otherwise, the investigation will proceed according

to statutory and regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act.

Dated: March 28, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-8216 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P