Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-423-808, A-122-830, A-475-822, A-791-805, A-580-831 and A-583-830]

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Stainless Steel

Plate in Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of South Africa,

South Korea and Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Presing (Belgium), at (202) 482-

0194; Maureen McPhillips (Canada), at (202) 482-0193; Rick Johnson

(Italy, Republic of Korea, and Taiwan) at (202) 482-3818; Robert James

(Republic of South Africa), at (202) 482-5222, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Initiation of Investigations

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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). In addition, unless otherwise

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

current regulations, as amended by the regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27296).

The Petition

On March 31, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

received a petition filed in proper form by Armco, Inc., J&L Specialty

Steel, Inc.1, Lukens, Inc., North American Stainless

2, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC

3, the Butler Armco Independent Union and the Zanesville

Armco Independent Organization, Inc. (petitioners). The Department

received supplemental information to the petition on April 14, 15, 17

and 20, 1998.

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

\1\ J&L Speciality Steel, Inc. is not a petitioner in the

Belgium case.

\2\ North American Stainless is not a petitioner in the Italy

case.

\3\ The United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC is not a

petitioner in the Canada case.

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

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

that imports of stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium,

Canada, Italy, Republic of South Africa, Republic of Korea and

[[Page 20581]]

Taiwan 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 an industry in the United

States.

The Department finds that petitioners filed the petition on behalf

of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined

in section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act and they have demonstrated

sufficient industry support with respect to each of the antidumping

investigations they are requesting the Department to initiate (see

Discussion below).

Scope of Investigations

For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is

certain stainless steel plate 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 plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in

width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or

otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject

plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.)

provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following

such processing. Excluded from the scope of this petition are the

following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or

otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and

strip, and (4) flat bars.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.05,

7219.12.00.20, 7219.12.00.25, 7219.12.00.50, 7219.12.00.55,

7219.12.00.65, 7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.31.00.10,

7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60,

7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 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, 7220.90.00.10,

7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS

subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

During our review of the petition, we discussed scope with the

petitioners to insure that the scope in the petition accurately

reflects the product for which they are seeking relief. Moreover, as

discussed in the preamble to the new regulations (62 FR 27323), we are

setting aside a period for parties to raise issues regarding product

coverage. The Department encourages all parties to submit such comments

by May 8, 1998. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's

Central Record Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The period

of scope consultations is intended to provide the Department with ample

opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to

the issuance of the preliminary determination.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on

behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act

provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic

producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least

25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and

(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product

produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or

opposition to, the petition.

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the

producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the

petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the

Department to look to producers and workers who account for production

of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC),

which is responsible for determining whether ``the domestic industry''

has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like

product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and

the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic

like product (section 771 (10) of the Act), they do so for different

purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition,

the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and

information. Although this may result in different definitions of the

like product, such differences do not render the decision of either

agency contrary to the law.4

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

\4\ See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp.

639, 642-44 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays

and Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final Determination;

Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR

32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).

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

Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as ``a

product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in

characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation

under this title.'' Thus, the reference point from which the domestic

like product analysis begins is ``the article subject to an

investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be

investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the

petition.

The domestic like product referred to in the petition is the single

domestic like product defined in the ``Scope of Investigation''

section, above. The Department has no basis on the record to find the

petition's definition of the domestic like product to be inaccurate.

The Department has, therefore, adopted the domestic like product

definition set forth in the petition. In this case, the Department has

determined that the petition and supplemental information to the

petition contain adequate evidence of sufficient industry support. For

all countries, producers and workers supporting the petition represent

over 50 percent of total production of the domestic like product.

Therefore, polling was not necessary. Accordingly, the Department

determines that the petition is filed on behalf of the domestic

industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

On April 14, 1998, Atlas Stainless Steels (Sammi Atlas), a producer

of SSPC in Canada, requested that the Department poll the domestic

industry regarding its support for the petition as required by 19

U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A). Sammi Atlas alleges that the petitioners are not

sufficiently representative of a domestic industry to permit them to

maintain a petition on stainless steel plate in coils from Canada

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A)(ii). Sammi Atlas argues that the

petitioners overstated their share of U.S. production of SSPC by

including the further processing of largely-imported products into

SSPC. Moreover, Sammi Atlas contends that the petitioners have inflated

production volumes of two other petitioning companies. Therefore, Sammi

Atlas maintains that after the exclusion of the further-processed

production volumes and the application of the correct U.S. production

volumes, the petitioners fail to have enough support for the petition,

as required in section 732(b)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Atlas

requests that the Department poll the domestic stainless plate industry

to determine whether there is industry support for the petition with

respect to Canada, as required by 19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(4)(A).

[[Page 20582]]

In response to Sammi Atlas' submission, the Department requested

and received affidavits from each of the petitioning companies

testifying to the accuracy of the production volumes of SPPC reported

in the petition. In addition, we contacted Armco and North American

Stainless to obtain additional information which corroborated their

affidavits. While both parties have submitted affidavits in support of

their production volumes, we believe that the individual affidavits

from each petitioning company for their own production lend more

credibility to the petitioners' production volumes than those submitted

by the Canadian producer, Sammi Atlas. Even if North American Stainless

were not included as a producer of SSPC, producers supporting the

petition still account for more that 50% of total production of

domestic like product. Therefore, the issue of whether or not North

American is a producer of the subject merchandise is moot. Accordingly,

the Department has determined that the petition was filed on behalf of

the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the

Act (see, Memorandum to the file, dated April 20, 1998).

Export Price and Normal Value

The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less

than fair value upon which our decisions to initiate these

investigations are based. Should the need arise to use any of this

information in our preliminary or final determinations for purposes of

facts available under section 776 of the Act, we may re-examine the

information and revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Belgium

The petitioners identified ALZ, N.V. (ALZ), Cockerill Sambre S.A.,

and Fabrique de Fer Charleroi as possible exporters of SSPC from

Belgium. The petitioners further identified ALZ as the sole producer of

subject merchandise in Belgium. The petitioners based export price (EP)

for ALZ on U.S. sales prices (from foreign market research) for the

first sales to unaffiliated purchasers in January 1998. Because the

terms of ALZ's U.S. sales were delivered to the U.S. customer, the

petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting estimated costs

for shipment from ALZ's factory in Belgium to the port of export (from

foreign market research). In addition, the petitioners subtracted ocean

freight, insurance (from official year U.S. import statistics), and

estimated costs for U.S. import duties and fees (from the 1997 HTSUS

schedule). Petitioners also subtracted amounts for the U.S. harbor

maintenance fee and U.S. merchandise processing fee (19 CFR,

Secs. 24.23 and 24.24). Finally, the petitioners obtained net U.S.

prices by also subtracting costs incurred to transport the merchandise

from the U.S. port to the customer's location in the United States

(from affidavit from petitioners), and credit expenses.

With respect to normal value (NV), based on information available

to them, petitioners determined that volume of Belgium home market

sales was sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to

section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained gross

unit prices (from foreign market research) for the products offered for

sale to customers in Belgium which are either identical or similar to

those sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by

subtracting estimated average delivery costs and credit expenses (from

foreign market research). Petitioners provided information

demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of

SSPC in the home market provided in the petition were made at prices

below the cost of production (COP), within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-

wide sales below cost investigation. Because one of the home market

sales used in the petition was below the calculated COP, pursuant to

sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners based NV for

that sale in Belgium on constructed value (CV).

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of

materials, fabrication, other processing (i.e., cost of manufacturing

(COM)) and selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and

profit. To calculate COM and SG&A, the petitioners relied on market

research data, and ALZ's 1996 financial statements. The petitioners

added to CV an amount for profit obtained from ALZ's 1996 financial

statements.

The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on a

comparison between ALZ's U.S. prices and CV, are 12.06 percent and 16

percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market prices, petitioners

calculated dumping margins are 9.33 percent.

Canada

The petitioners identified Atlas Stainless Steels (Sammi Atlas),

Division of Sammi Atlas, Inc., a member of the Sammi Group, a major

South Korean producer of stainless steel products, as the sole Canadian

producer of SSPC. Therefore, the petitioners conclude that Sammi Atlas

accounts for substantially all Canadian exports of SSPC to the United

States.

The petitioners based EP on two of Sammi Atlas' export sales to

steel service centers/distributors in the United States (from domestic

industry sources). To calculate the net export price for the first U.S.

sale, dated September 1997, petitioners deducted estimated U.S. inland

freight (from the experience of U.S. producers), international freight

and insurance (from the 1997 HTSUS schedule), customs duties, harbor

maintenance, merchandise processing fees (from official year U.S.

import statistics), and foreign inland freight (from affidavit from

petitioners).

Because the terms of the gross unit price of the February 1998 sale

to the U.S. were ex-mill, duty-paid, petitioners adjusted the gross

unit price by subtracting U.S. import duties, harbor maintenance, and

merchandise processing fees.

With respect to NV, based on information available to them,

petitioners determined that the volume of Canadian home market sales

was sufficient to form a basis for NV, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners used the prices for two

home market sales of SSPC made in May 1997 and February 1998 by Sammi

Atlas to unaffiliated steel service centers. Since the gross unit price

of the May 1997 sale was on an FOB basis with 30-day payment terms,

they calculated the net home market price for this sale to the first

unaffiliated customer by subtracting the estimated credit expense (from

``International Financial Statistics'' of the International Monetary

Fund).

The gross unit price for the February 1998 sale of the same product

included an amount for an alloy surcharge and inland freight charges

(from foreign marker research). Petitioners subtracted from the price

to the unaffiliated customer these two items and an amount reflecting

estimated credit expenses for the 30-day payment (from foreign marker

research) terms to yield the net home market price in Canadian dollars.

The two Canadian home market sales were then converted to U.S. dollar

prices using the official exchange rate in effect on the month of the

comparison U.S. sale.

The two price comparisons of EP to NV yield dumping margins of

15.35 percent and 6.85 percent, respectively.

Italy

The petitioners identified Arinox Srl (Arinox) as an exporter and

Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (AST) as an exporter and producer of SSPC

from Italy.

[[Page 20583]]

Petitioners relied on price information for AST, basing EP on U.S.

sales prices obtained by two of the petitioning companies for sales to

an unaffiliated purchaser in November 1997. The petitioners calculated

a net U.S. price by subtracting amounts for foreign inland freight

(from foreign market research), U.S. inland freight (from an affidavit

from petitioners), international freight and insurance (the average

difference in the C.I.F. values and the U.S. Customs values reported in

the official U.S. import statistics for 1997), U.S. harbor maintenance

and U.S. merchandise processing fees (19 CFR, Secs. 24.23 and 24.24),

and estimated costs for U.S. import duties (from the 1997 HTSUS

schedule). Imputed credit was also deducted from export price for the

price-to-price comparison (lending rate as published in International

Financial Statistics).

With respect to NV, based on information reasonably available to

them, petitioners determined that the volume of Italian home market

sales was sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to

section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained gross

unit prices from a foreign market research for products offered for

sale to customers in Italy which are either identical or similar to

those sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by

subtracting estimated average delivery costs (from foreign market

research). Petitioners did not adjust for packing costs because

petitioners claim that packing for export is more expensive than

packing for domestic shipment.

Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that the sales of stainless steel plate in coils

in the home market provided in the petition were made at prices below

COP, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested

that the Department conduct a country-wide sales below cost

investigation. Because the home market sales used in the petition were

below the calculated COP, pursuant to sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of

the Act, the petitioners also based NV for sales in Italy on CV.

CV consists of COM, SG&A, and profit. The petitioners calculated

the direct portion of COM based on Italian costs obtained through

foreign market research. To calculate the indirect portion of COM,

SG&A, and profit, the petitioners relied on public information and the

1995 financial statements of AST, which were provided in the petition.

The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on a

comparison between AST's U.S. price and the CV, range from 49.99 to

59.02 percent. Based on a comparison of EP to home market price,

petitioners calculate a dumping margin range from 11.36 percent to

34.59 percent.

Republic of South Africa

Petitioners identified two South African exporters and producers of

stainless steel coiled plate: Columbus Stainless Steel Co., Ltd.

(Columbus) and Iscor Ltd. (Iscor). Petitioners noted that, to the best

of their knowledge, Columbus accounted for over 90 percent of the

exports of subject merchandise from The Republic of South Africa.

Petitioners based EP on two duty-paid, delivered price quotes made by

Columbus to unaffiliated U.S. steel service centers/distributors. The

quoted prices were for two grades of coiled plate during the fourth

quarter of 1997.

Because the terms of Columbus' U.S. sales were delivered to the

U.S. customer, the petitioners made deductions for international

freight and insurance, average U.S. inland freight charges (from the

experience of U.S. producers.) from the U.S. port to all U.S. purchaser

locations, U.S. import duties, and harbor maintenance and merchandise

processing fees. To calculate international freight and insurance,

petitioners divided import charges by the weight of imported coiled

plate from The Republic of South Africa in 1997 for the two HTS numbers

named in the petition. Petitioners used the specific ad valorem harbor

maintenance and merchandise processing fees that U.S. Customs levies on

imported merchandise.

With respect to normal value (from foreign market research),

petitioners determined that the volume of South African home market

sales was sufficient to form a basis for NV pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained two price quotes

from Columbus for coiled plate offered for sale to customers in The

Republic of South Africa which are either identical or similar to those

sold to the United States. Petitioners adjusted these prices for

estimated inland freight, packing and credit expenses. Petitioners

provided information alleging that the sales of SSPC in the home market

provided in the petition were made at prices below the COP, within the

meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department

conduct a sales below cost investigation. However, based on our review

of the foreign market research and a discussion with the foreign market

researcher whose data formed the basis for petitioners' below-cost

allegation, the Department has found that the information contained in

the petition did not provide reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales in the home market have been made at below COP.

The estimated dumping margins in the petition based on a comparison

between U.S. prices and NV are 14.09 percent to 19.46 percent.

Republic of Korea

The petitioners identified Pohang Iron and Steel Company (POSCO)

and Sammi Steel Company (Sammi) as exporters and producers of SSPC from

the Republic of Korea. The petitioners based export price on price

quotations obtained by two of the petitioning companies for sales to

unaffiliated U.S. purchasers of SSPC manufactured by POSCO. The quoted

prices were (with the exception of one sale) delivered, duty paid sales

of SSPC sold during the first, third, and fourth quarters of 1997.

Petitioners calculated a net U.S. price by subtracting from the

reported U.S. price estimated shipment costs from POSCO's factory in

Korea to the port of export (from foreign market research), costs for

ocean freight and insurance (the average import charges reported in

official U.S. import statistics for Korea), import duties (1997 HTSUS

schedule), harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees (19 CFR

24.23 and 24.24) and domestic inland freight (from affidavit provided

by one of the petitioning companies).

With respect to NV, based on information available to them,

petitioners determined that the volume of South Korean home market

sales was sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to

section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained gross

unit prices from market research for SSPC manufactured by POSCO and

offered for sale to customers in the Republic of Korea which are either

identical or similar to those sold to the United States. Petitioners

adjusted these prices by subtracting estimated average delivery costs

(from foreign market research).

Petitioners provided information demonstrating reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that sales of SSPC in the home market provided in

the petition were made at prices below the COP, within the meaning of

section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a

country-wide sales below cost investigation. Because the home market

sales used in the petition were below the calculated COP, pursuant to

sections 773(a)(4) and 773(e) of the Act, petitioners based NV

[[Page 20584]]

for sales in The Republic of Korea on CV.

Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the COM,

SG&A, and profit. The petitioners calculated the direct portion of COM

based on South Korean costs obtained through market research. To

calculate the indirect portion of COM, SG&A and CV profit, petitioners

relied on POSCO's 1996 financial statements. Based on comparisons of EP

to CV, petitioners estimated margins range from 30.96 to 35.78 percent.

Based on a comparison of EP to home market price, estimated dumping

margins range from 4.20 percent to 11.97 percent.

Taiwan

The petitioners identified Chang Mien Industries Co., Ltd. (Chang

Mien), Chia Far Industrial Factory Co., Ltd. (Chia Far), Chien Shing

Stainless Steel (Chien Shing), China Steel Corp. (China Steel), Tang

Eng Iron Works, Co., Ltd (Tang Eng), Tung Mung Development Co. Ltd.

(Tung Mung), and Yieh United Steel Corp. (Yieh United) as exporters and

producers of SSPC from Taiwan. The petitioners based EP on price

quotations made to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of

importation. The quoted prices were for delivered and duty paid SSPC

during the fourth quarter of 1997. Petitioners calculated net U.S.

price by subtracting amounts for international freight and insurance

(the average import charges reported in the official U.S. import

statistics under the 1997 HTS subheading 7219.12.0045 from Taiwan),

U.S. import duties (from the 1997 HTSUS schedule) and harbor

maintenance and merchandise processing fees (19 CFR 24.23 and 24.24)

from the quoted prices. Finally, petitioners obtained net U.S. prices

by also subtracting cost incurred to transport the merchandise from the

U.S. port to the customer's location in the United States (from an

affidavit from petitioner).

With respect to NV, based on information available to them,

petitioners determined that the volume of Taiwanese home market sales

was sufficient to form a basis for normal value, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act. Petitioners obtained gross unit prices

from foreign market research for sales of SSPC by Tang Eng and Tung

Mung which are either identical or similar to those sold to the United

States. Petitioners adjusted these prices by subtracting amounts for

inland freight and packaging (from foreign market research).

Petitioners submitted information alleging that the sales of SSPC in

the home market provided in the petition were made at prices below COP,

within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the

Department conduct a country-wide sales below cost investigation.

However, based on our review of the foreign market research study and a

discussion with the foreign market researcher whose data formed the

basis for petitioners' below-cost allegation, the Department has found

that the information contained in the petition did not provide

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales in the home market

have been made at below COP.

The estimated dumping margins in the petition, based on a

comparison between Tang Eng's and Tung Mung's U.S. prices and home

market price, range from 0.29 to 8.02 percent.

Initiation of Cost Investigations

Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, petitioners provided

information demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that

sales in the home markets of Belgium, Italy, and the Republic of Korea

were made at prices below the fully allocated COP and, accordingly,

requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales below COP

investigation in connection with the requested antidumping

investigations in each of these countries. The Statement of

Administrative Action (``SAA''), submitted to the Congress in

connection with the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round

Agreements, states that an allegation of sales below COP need not be

specific to individual exporters or producers. SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316,

103d Cong., 2d Sess., at 833 (1994). The SAA, at 833, states that

``Commerce will consider allegations of below-cost sales in the

aggregate for a foreign country, just as Commerce currently considers

allegations of sales at less than fair value on a country-wide basis

for purposes of initiating an antidumping investigation.''

Further, the SAA provides that ``new section 773(b)(2)(A) retains

the current requirement that Commerce have `reasonable grounds to

believe or suspect' that below cost sales have occurred before

initiating such an investigation. `Reasonable grounds' * * * exist when

an interested party provides specific factual information on costs and

prices, observed or constructed, indicating that sales in the foreign

market in question are at below-cost prices.'' Id. Based upon the

comparison of the adjusted prices from the petition of the

representative foreign like products in their respective home markets

to their costs of production, we find the existence of ``reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect'' that sales of these foreign like

products in each of the listed countries were made below their

respective COPs within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

Act. Accordingly, the Department is initiating the requested country-

wide cost investigations, except with regard to Taiwan and Republic of

South Africa. (see Country specific sections above.)

Fair Value Comparisons

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

believe that imports of SSPC from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of

Korea, The Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan are being, or are

likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

The petition alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic

like product is being materially injured, and is threatened with

material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of

the subject merchandise sold at less than NV. Petitioners explained

that the industry injured condition is evident in the declining trends

in net operating profits, net sales volumes, profit to sales ratios and

capacity utilization. The allegations of injury and causation are

supported by relevant evidence including U.S. Customs import data, lost

sales and pricing information. The Department assessed the allegations

and supporting evidence regarding material injury and causation and

determined that these allegations are sufficiently supported by

accurate and adequate evidence and meet the statutory requirements for

initiation.

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

Based upon our examination of the petition on SSPC, as well as our

discussion with the authors of the foreign market research reports

(see, Memoranda to the file, dated April 20, 1998), we have found that

the petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act.

Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to

determine whether imports of SSPC from Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic

of Korea, Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan are being, or are likely

to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless this

deadline is extended, we will make our preliminary determinations by

September 8, 1998.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

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

public version of each petition has been

[[Page 20585]]

provided to the representatives of Belgium, Canada, Italy, Republic of

Korea, Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan. We will attempt to provide

a copy of the public version of each petition to each exporter named in

the petition (as appropriate).

International Trade Commission Notification

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

732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

The ITC will determine by May 15, 1998, whether there is a

reasonable indication that imports of SSPC from Belgium, Canada, Italy,

Republic of Korea, Republic of South Africa, and Taiwan are causing

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

industry. A negative ITC determination will, for any country, result in

the investigations being terminated with respect to that country;

otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and

regulatory time limits.

This notice is published pursuant to Section 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: April 20, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-10997 Filed 4-24-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P