Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the Russian Federation

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-821-808]

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the Russian Federation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair

value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nithya Nagarajan, Eugenia Chu, or Yury

Beyzarov, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193, (202) 482-3964, or

(202) 482-2243, respectively.

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 Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the

current regulations, as codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1, 1996).

Preliminary Determination

We determine preliminarily that certain cut-to-length carbon steel

plate from the Russian Federation is being, or is likely to be, sold in

the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in

section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins are shown in the

``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this investigation (61 FR 64051, December

3, 1996), the following events have occurred:

On December 19, 1996, the United States International Trade

Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary determination in

this case (see ITC Investigations Nos. 731-TA-753-756). The ITC found

that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United

States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the

Russian Federation of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate.

The Department issued its antidumping questionnaires to the Russian

Embassy on December 20, 1996, and requested the Embassy to forward the

documents to all Russian producers/exporters of certain cut-to-length

carbon steel plate, as well as to manufacturers who produced the

subject merchandise for companies who were engaged in exporting subject

merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. We

requested the Embassy to inform these companies that they must respond

by the due dates. We also sent courtesy copies to the companies whose

names and complete addresses had been identified in the petition.

On January 8, 1997, the Department conducted a questionnaire

presentation in the Russian Federation. Attending the presentation were

officials from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and

potential producers/exporters of certain cut-to-length carbon steel

plate.

On January 10, 1997, Geneva Steel Company and Gulf States Steel

Company (petitioners), alleged that critical circumstances exist with

respect to imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the

Russian Federation. This issue is addressed in the ``Preliminary

Determination of Critical Circumstances'' section of this notice.

On February 6, 1997, the Department provided interested parties

with the opportunity to submit published, publicly available

information for the Department to consider when valuing the factors of

production and for surrogate country selection. We received comments

from interested parties at the end of February 1997.

In January and February 1997, one Russian company, JSC Severstal

(Severstal), submitted responses to sections A, C, and D of the

questionnaire. Severstal is a Russian exporter of subject merchandise.

We issued supplemental questionnaires to this respondent company on

March 7, 1997 and received completed responses on April 4, and 11,

1997.

Severstal reported that it sold subject merchandise through

unrelated trading companies at the port of export in Russia or the

Baltic states. In light of this fact, the Department concluded that

clarification was required as to whether these resellers sold

additional subject

[[Page 31968]]

merchandise (unreported by the respondents) to the United States.

Therefore, in March 1997, we also issued trading company questionnaires

to Severstal's resellers. However, we received no responses.

Also in March, in response to the Russian government's comments on

Russia's nonmarket economy (NME) status, the Department issued the

Russian government a questionnaire to clarify whether the Russian

Federation's NME status should be revoked. However, on March 28, 1997,

the Russian Federation informed the Department that it will not be

seeking market-economy status in this proceeding. This issue is

addressed in the ``Nonmarket Economy Country Status'' section of this

notice.

Except for Severstal, none of the other companies served with a

questionnaire responded to the Department's original questionnaire.

On April 15, 1997, petitioners submitted a request that the scope

of their petitions be amended to include three items--plate in coil;

plate made to carbon plate specifications regardless of alloy content;

and plate sold to nominal plate thicknesses whose actual thickness is

slightly less than the thickness of plate but within specified

thickness tolerances. With respect to plate in coil, petitioners

maintain that this product has essentially the same physical

characteristics and end uses as cut-to-length plate. Petitioners

further claim that a post-initiation shift has occurred in the pattern

of trade from cut-to-length plate to plate in coil form, and that such

a development indicates that any eventual order on cut-to-length plate

will be susceptible to circumvention. Petitioners submitted additional

information on May 9, 1997. Respondents submitted extensive rebuttal

comments on April 25, 1997, and May 30, 1997.

Because of the very recent submission of arguments on these complex

and technical subjects, we were unable to fully analyze all of the

relevant information on the record prior to this preliminary

determination. In order to fully examine petitioners' claims, we intend

to carefully examine all evidence and argument on the record regarding

this matter and issue a decision as soon as possible.

On April 30, 1997 (62 FR 23433) we further postponed the

preliminary determination until not later than June 3, 1997.

Scope of the Investigation

The products covered by this investigation are hot-rolled iron and

non-alloy steel universal mill plates (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 rectangular shape,

neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted,

varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and

certain iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of

rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with

metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or

other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a

width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness.

Included as subject merchandise in this petition are flat-rolled

products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is

achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have

been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been

bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently

classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS)

under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,

7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,

7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,

7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Although the

HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 1996, through

September 30, 1996.

Nonmarket Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the Russian Federation as a nonmarket

economy country (NME) in all past antidumping investigations and

administrative reviews (see, e.g., Titanium Sponge from the Russian

Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,

62 FR 25920 (May 12, 1997); Notice of Final Determination of Sale at

Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the

Russian Federation, 60 FR 16440 (March 30, 1995); Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of the

Final Determination: Ferrovanadium and Nitridid Vanadium from the

Russian Federation, 60 FR 438 (January 4, 1995)). A designation as an

NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department (see

section 771(18)(C) of the Act). Therefore, for this preliminary

determination, the Department will continue to treat the Russian

Federation as an NME.

On January 9, 1997 the Russian Federation submitted a filing, on

the record, requesting market economy status. The filing consisted of a

letter and several Russian laws. On March 25, 1997, the Department

drafted a questionnaire addressed to the Department of the Ministry for

Foreign Economic Relations of the Russian Federation requesting

additional information for Market Economy Status. On April 22, 1997,

the Department contacted the Russian embassy via telephone regarding

the Department's questionnaire on market economy status. The Embassy

conveyed to Department personnel that the Russian Federation will not

be seeking market economy status in this proceeding. Thus, the

Department will continue to treat the Russian Federation as an NME.

Surrogate Country

When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section

773(c) of the Act directs the Department in most circumstances to base

normal value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued

in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered

appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4),

the Department, in valuing the factors of production, shall utilize, to

the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in

one or more market-economy countries that are comparable in terms of

economic development to the NME country and are significant producers

of comparable merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are

discussed under the NV section below.

The Department has determined that Tunisia, Peru, Poland,

Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey are countries comparable to

the Russian Federation in terms of overall economic development. See

Policy Memorandum, dated January 29, 1997.

According to the available information on the record, we have

determined that Brazil is an appropriate surrogate because it is at a

comparable level of economic development and is a significant producer

of comparable merchandise. Furthermore, there is a wide array of

publicly available information for Brazil. Accordingly, we have

calculated NV using Brazilian prices to value the Russian producers'

[[Page 31969]]

factors of production, when available and where appropriate. We have

obtained and relied upon public information wherever possible.

Separate Rates

The Department presumes that a single dumping margin is appropriate

for all exporters in a non market economy country. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon

Carbide). The Department may, however, consider requests for a separate

rate from individual exporters. Severstal has requested a separate,

company-specific rate. The claimed ownership structure of Severstal

during the POI is that of a publicly owned joint stock company, where

the state owns 20% of the shares.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department

analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the

People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers) and

amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the

Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if a

respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto

governmental control over export activities. For a complete analysis of

separate rates, see Separate Rates Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.

1. Absence of De Jure Control

An individual company may be considered for separates rates if it

meets the following de jure criteria: (1) An absence of restrictive

stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control

of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. The respondents have placed on the

administrative record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of

de jure control. These documents include laws, regulations, and

provisions enacted by the central government of the Russian Federation,

describing the deregulation of Russian enterprise as well as the

deregulation of the Russian export trade, except for a list of products

that may be subject to central government export constraints.

Respondents claim that the subject merchandise is not on this list.

This information supports a preliminary finding that there is an

absence of de jure government control. See Separate Rates Memorandum,

dated June 3, 1997.

2. Absence of De Facto Control

The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating

whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of

its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by

or subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the

respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government

in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and

makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or

financing of losses.

Severstal has asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own

EPs; (2) it negotiates contracts, without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations; (3) it selects its own

management; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses

profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell

its assets and to obtain loans. In addition, Severstal's questionnaire

responses indicate that company-specific pricing during the POI does

not suggest coordination among exporters. This information supports a

preliminary finding that there is an absence of de facto governmental

control of the export functions of these companies.

Consequently, we determine preliminarily that Severstal meets the

criteria for application of separate rates. See Separate Rates

Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.

The Russia-Wide Rate

U.S. import statistics indicate that the total quantity and value

of U.S. imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the

Russian Federation is greater than the total quantity and value of

steel plate reported by all Russian companies that submitted responses.

Given this discrepancy, we conclude that not all exporters of Russian

cut-to-length carbon steel plate responded to our questionnaire.

Accordingly, we are applying a single antidumping deposit rate--the

Russia-wide rate--to all exporters in the Russian Federation (other

than Severstal), based on our presumption that those respondents who

failed to respond constitute a single enterprise and are under common

control by the Russian Federation government. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the

People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996).

This Russia-wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts

available. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``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 by the deadlines for the submission of the information

or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this

title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be

verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority * *

* shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available

in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''

In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides 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,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to

the interests of that party as the facts otherwise available. The

statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on

secondary information, including the information drawn from the

petition.

As discussed above, all Russian exporters that do not qualify for a

separate rate are treated as a single enterprise. Because some

exporters of the single enterprise failed to respond to the

Department's requests for information, that single enterprise is

considered to be uncooperative. In such situations, the Department

generally selects as total facts available either the higher of the

average of the margin from the petition or the highest rate calculated

for a respondent in the proceeding. In the present case, the average

margin in the petition is higher than the one calculated rate.

Accordingly, the Department has based the Russia-wide rate on

information in the petition. In this case, the average petition rate is

185.00 percent.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department relies

on ``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent

practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources

reasonable at the Department's disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA clarifies that the

petition is ``secondary information'' and that ``corroborate'' means to

determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at

870.

[[Page 31970]]

In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the

margins in the petition to the extent practicable. The information

contained in the petition shows that petitioners calculated export

price based on two methods: (1) The import values declared to the U.S.

Customs Service; and (2) an average export price derived from actual

U.S. selling prices known to petitioners. We compared the starting

prices used by petitioners less the importer mark-ups against prices

derived from U.S. import statistics and found that the two sets of

prices were consistent. We also compared the movement charges used in

the petition with the surrogate values used by the Department in its

margin calculations and found them to be consistent.

The information in the petition with respect to the normal value

(NV) is based on factors of production used by the petitioners in the

production of steel plate. Petitioners submitted usage amounts for

materials, labor and energy, adjusted for known differences in

production efficiencies. Petitioners submitted three cost models in the

petition: 1) Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) Cost Model; 2) Open-Hearth

Furnace Cost Model; and 3) Weighted Average Normal Value of the BOF and

Open-Hearth methods to account for differences between the production

processes of petitioners and potential respondents.

The margins in the petition ranged from 139.97 to 230.38 percent

obtained by comparing the normal values to the export price developed

from customs values and to export prices developed from actual U.S.

price quotes. For each method, petitioners submitted estimated dumping

margins for the BOF method, the open-hearth method and a weighted

average of the two. For more detail, see Corroboration Memorandum,

dated June 3, 1997.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from

the Russian Federation sold to the United States by the Russian

exporters receiving separate rates were made at less than fair value,

we compared the EP to the NV, as specified in the ``Export Price'' and

``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

Export Price

For Severstal, we calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a)

of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation

and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise

indicated. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs to the factors of production.

We made adjustments as follows: We calculated EP based on packed,

FOB prices to the port of loading on the Russian territory. We made

deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for brokerage

and handling. However, because these services were provided by the

Russian port, these services were assigned a surrogate value as

available from Brazilian publicly available published data.

Normal Value

In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV

based on factors of production reported by the factory in the Russian

Federation which produced the cut-to-length carbon steel plate sold by

Severstal. We valued all the input factors using publicly available

published information as discussed in the Surrogate Country section of

this notice.

Factor Valuations

The selection of the surrogate values was based on the quality and

contemporaneity of the data. Where possible, we attempted to value

material inputs on the basis of tax-exclusive domestic prices in the

surrogate country. Where we were not able to rely on domestic prices,

we used import prices to value factors. As appropriate, we adjusted

input prices to make them delivered prices. For those values not

contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale

price indices or, in the case of labor rates, consumer price indices,

published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial

Statistics. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see Factors

Memorandum.

To value coal, coke, iron, lime, ferro alloys, packing materials

(locks), and scrap, we used public information from the latest data

published by the United Nations for 1996 (Commodity Trade Statistics

1994, 3 Brazil Rev. 1995, at 19). For limestone, we used information

from Commodity Trade Statistics 1993, Brazil Rev. 3, United Nations,

1994. For packing (bands), we used information reported in data from

the 1992 UN Import Statistics; Taken from the Department of Commerce

NME Factors Index, case A-821-805.

For natural gas, we relied on public information reported in the

Diario Oficial No. 180, September 27, 1995. For electricity, we relied

upon public information from the September 27, 1995 Official

Publication of the Brazilian Government to obtain an average price for

electricity.

To value rail transport for coal and for iron ore, we used public

information reported in the July 1996 Cargo and Transport Magazine

(Confederaco Nacional de Transporte Brazil). The exchange rate used was

.9970 US$/R$. The source for the exchange rate for rail transport was

obtained from the IMF's International Financial Statistics, January

1997, for the average during the POI.

To value skilled labor, we used the County Reports on Human Rights

Practices for 1996, from the U.S. Department of State. For unskilled

labor, we relied on data obtained from a U.S. Department of Commerce

cable dated October 1994. To value overhead, SG&A, and profit, we used

public information reported in the 1996/1997 Brazil company handbook.

These are the average percentages for various Brazilian iron and steel

companies. To value brokerage, we relied on public information from

Case No. A-351-817, Plate from Brazil, Usiminas, Section C Response at

Exh.6, dated November 21, 1996.

Severstal reported the amount of slag, a by-product of the plate

production process, produced in the production of the subject

merchandise. Normally, the Department offsets the calculated cost of

manufacturing by the value of any by-products. The only surrogate value

for slag from Brazil was aberrationally high when compared to an

available U.S. rate. Based on our knowledge of the steelmaking process,

we know that slag is a by-product with a relatively low value (compared

to the price of steel plate). We were able to locate an appropriate

value for slag from the U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodities

Summaries from February 1997. We used the U.S. slag value for the

preliminary determination. We will continue to try to locate an

appropriate surrogate value from Brazil, or another country at a

comparable level of development for our final determination.

Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances

On January 10, 1997, the petitioners alleged that there is a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances

exist with respect to imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel

plate. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.16(b)(2)(i) (1996), since these

allegations were filed earlier than the deadline for the Department's

preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary critical

[[Page 31971]]

circumstances determinations not later than the preliminary

determination.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that if a petitioner alleges

critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is

a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (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 statute and the Statement of Administrative Action which

accompanies the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (SAA) are silent as to how

we are to make a finding that there was knowledge that there was likely

to be material injury. Therefore, Congress has left the method of

implementing this provision to the Department's discretion.

In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or

suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter

was selling the plate at less than fair value, the Department normally

considers margins of 15 percent or more sufficient to impute knowledge

of dumping for constructed export price (CEP) sales, and margins of 25

percent or more for export price (EP) sales. See, e.g., Preliminary

Critical Circumstances Determination: Honey from the People's Republic

of China (PRC), 60 FR 29824 (June 6, 1995) (Honey). Since the company

specific margins for EP sales in our preliminary determination for

carbon steel plate are greater than 25 percent for Severstal, we have

imputed knowledge of dumping.

In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or

suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was

likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the

Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination

of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present

material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will

determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge

that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports

during the critical circumstances period--the 90-day period beginning

with the initiation of the investigation (see 19 CFR 353.16(g)). If, as

in this case, the ITC preliminarily finds threat of material injury

(See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa,

and Ukraine, U.S. International Trade Commission, December 1996), the

Department will also consider the extent of the increase in the volume

of imports of the subject merchandise during the critical circumstances

period and the magnitude of the margins in determining whether a

reasonable basis exists to impute knowledge that material injury was

likely.

In this case, imports of Russian plate increased 145 percent in the

three months following the initiation of the investigation when

compared to the three months immediately preceding initiation, or

almost ten times the level of increase needed to find ``massive

imports'' during the same period (see below). Furthermore, we have

preliminarily found margins of 61.23 percent for Severstal.

Based on the ITC's preliminary determination of threat of injury,

the increase in imports noted above, and the high preliminary margins,

the Department determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe

or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that there was

likely to be material injury by means of sales of the subject

merchandise at less than fair value.

To determine whether imports were massive over a relatively short

time period, the Department typically compares the import volume of the

subject merchandise for the three months immediately preceding and

following the initiation of the proceeding. See 19 CFR 353.16(g).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), the Department will consider an

increase of 15 percent or more in the imports of the subject

merchandise over the relevant period to be massive. As noted, imports

of the subject merchandise increased 145 percent during the relevant

period, and thus we determine that imports have been massive.

Thus, because we determine that there is a reasonable basis to

believe or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that

Russian exporters were 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 that there have been massive imports of the subject

merchandise over a relatively short time period, we preliminarily

determine that critical circumstances exist for Severstal.

For companies subject to the Russia-wide rate (i.e., companies

which did not respond to the Department's questionnaire), we are

imputing knowledge based on the Russia-wide rate, and determine, based

on facts available, that there were massive imports of certain cut-to-

length carbon steel plate by companies that did not respond to the

Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that

critical circumstances exist with regard to these companies.

We find that critical circumstances exist for cut-to-length carbon

steel plate sales by all Russian exporters.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the

information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the

Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject from

Ukraine, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption

on or after the date ninety days prior to the date of publication of

this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct Customs Service

to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the

weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the EP, as

indicated below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will

remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

Weighted-

average

Manufacturer/producer/exporter margin

percentage

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

Severstal.................................................. 61.23

The Russia-Wide Rate....................................... 185.00

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

The Russia-Wide Rate

A Russia-wide rate has been assigned to certain cut-to-length

carbon steel plate based on the average margin contained in the

petition, as amended by the Department. The Russia-wide rate applies to

all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from exporters/

factories that are identified individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,

the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of

this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination

whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially

injured, or threatened with

[[Page 31972]]

material injury, by reasons of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of

sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38 (1996), case briefs or other

written comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than 50 days

after the publication of this preliminary determination, and rebuttal

briefs, no later than 5 days after the filing of case briefs. A list of

authorities used and a summary of arguments made in the briefs should

accompany these briefs. Such summary should be limited to five pages

total, including footnotes. We will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. The hearing will be held

at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, time, date, and room to be

determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and

place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate

if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

1870, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests

should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be

discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b) (1996), oral

presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this

investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination

by August 18, 1997.

This determination is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the

Act.

Dated: June 3, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-15293 Filed 6-10-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P