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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-10997

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** April 27, 1998
- **Citation:** 63 FR 20580

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-10997. Public record. Not legal advice.