Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (``SSPC'') from Italy

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-822]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils (``SSPC'') from Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lesley Stagliano or Rick Johnson,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

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

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0780 or (202) 482-3818,

respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to

the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce

(``Department'') regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351,

62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that Stainless Steel Plate in Coils

(``SSPC'') from Italy are being, or are 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 of sales at LTFV are

shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

On April 20, 1998, the Department initiated antidumping duty

investigations of imports of stainless steel plate in coils from

Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan (Notice

of Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Stainless Steel Plates in

Coils From Belgium, Canada, Italy, South Africa , South Korea and

Taiwan (63 FR 20580, April 27, 1998) (``Notice of Initiation'')). Since

the initiation of this investigation the following events have

occurred:

The Department set aside a period for all interested parties to

raise issues regarding product coverage. On May 8, 1998, petitioners

Armco, Inc.; J&L Specialty Steel Inc.; Lukens, Inc.; the United

Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC; the Butler Armco Independent

Union: and the Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc.

(``petitioners'') submitted comments stating that, while they believed

the scope of the investigations was accurate, they wished to clarify

certain issues concerning product coverage. On May 21, 1998,

respondents filed rebuttal comments stating their objection to the

scope comments filed by petitioners. The Department made no changes to

the scope concerning these comments.

During May 1998, the Department requested information from the U.S.

Embassy in Italy to identify producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise. The embassy identified two companies in Italy as

producers/exporters of subject merchandise, Acciai Speciali Terni SpA

(``AST'') and Arinox, Srl (``Arinox''). During May 1998, the Department

also requested and received comments from petitioners and potential

respondents in these investigations regarding the model matching

criteria.

On May 15, 1998, the United States International Trade Commission

(``ITC'') notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury

determination in this case.

On May 27, 1998, the Department issued antidumping duty

questionnaires to AST and to Arinox. On June 24, 1998, Arinox informed

the Department by electronic mail that the company did not produce

subject merchandise during the period of investigation, and therefore

did not respond to the Department's questionnaire.

Furthermore, AST did not respond to the Department's antidumping

questionnaire. Thus, the Department received no questionnaire responses

from identified Italian stainless steel producers/exporters.

On July 28, 1998, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the

petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary

determination for thirty days. On August 14, 1998, the Department

postponed the preliminary determinations until no later than October

27, 1998. See Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Antidumping Duty

Investigations of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils: from Belgium, Canada,

Italy, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan (63 FR 44840, August 21,

1998).

On August 20, 1998, petitioners amended the antidumping petitions

to include Allegheny Ludlum Corporation as an additional petitioner.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is

certain stainless

[[Page 59531]]

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

(HTSUS) 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 HTSUS

subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (``POI'') is January 1, 1997, through

December 31, 1997.

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 of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the

antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d) of

the Act, use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable

determination. As discussed above, AST failed to respond to the

Department's questionnaire. Accordingly, we have determined, under

section 776(a)(2)(A), that we must base our determination for that

company on the facts available.

Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that adverse inferences

may be used for a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to

the best of its ability to comply with a request for information (see

also the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA''), accompanying the

URAA, H.R. Rp. No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 870). Given their refusal

to comply with the Department's request for information, AST has failed

to cooperate to the best of its ability in this investigation.

Therefore, the Department has determined that an adverse inference is

warranted with respect to AST.

In this proceeding, we used the information from the petition to

form the basis for a dumping margin for this uncooperative respondent.

Thus, consistent with Department practice (see, e.g., Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless

Steel Wire Rod From Germany), 63 FR 10847 (March 5, 1998) (``Stainless

Steel Wire Rod from Germany'')) as facts otherwise available, the

Department is assigning to AST the highest margin alleged in the

petition for any Italian producer, which is 45.09 percent (see

Initiation Checklist and the Notice of Initiation for a discussion of

the margin calculations in the petition).

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

on ``secondary information,'' (e.g., the petition) as the facts

available, the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate

that information with independent sources reasonably at the

Department's disposal. The SAA accompanying the URAA clarifies that the

petition is ``secondary information.'' See SAA at 870. The SAA also

clarifies that ``corroborate'' means to determine whether the

information used has probative value. Id.

We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the

petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the

extent appropriate information was available for this purpose (e.g.,

import statistics, foreign market research reports, and data from U.S.

producers). See Notice of Initiation and April 20, 1998, ``Import

Administration AD Investigation Initiation Checklist (``Initiation

Checklist''). Specifically, the petitioners based both export price

(``EP'') and normal value (``NV'') in the petition on foreign market

research, affidavits concerning prices and freight costs, official U.S.

import statistics, U.S. government sources and International Financial

Statistics.

As certain information included in the margin calculation in the

petition is from public sources concerning for the most part the POI

(e.g., international freight and insurance, U.S. harbor maintenance and

U.S. merchandise processing fees, SG&A and profit), we find, for the

purpose of the preliminary determination, that the information is

sufficiently corroborated. However, with respect to certain data

included in the margin calculations included in the petition (e.g.,

gross U.S. and home market unit prices), the Department was provided no

information by the respondents or other interested parties, and is

aware of no other independent sources of information, that would enable

it to further corroborate the remaining components of the margin

calculation in the petition. The implementing regulation to section 776

of the Act, at 19 CFR 351.308(c), states ``[t]he fact that

corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance will not

prevent the Secretary from applying an adverse inference as appropriate

and using the secondary information in question.'' Additionally, we

note that the SAA at 870 specifically states that, where

``corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance'', the

Department may nevertheless apply an adverse inference. We note further

that the Department has used as the facts available margins developed

in the petition that are based in part on foreign market research in

other cases. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany, and

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

and Postponement of Final Determination: Melamine Institutional

Dinnerware Products From Indonesia, 61 FR 43333 (August 22, 1996).

The All-Others Rate

All foreign manufacturers/exporters in this investigation are being

assigned dumping margins on the basis of facts otherwise available.

Section 735(c)(5) of the Act provides that, where the dumping margins

established for all exporters and producers individually investigated

are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department

may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated all-others

rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated,

including weight averaging the zero, de minimus, and the margins based

on facts available. In this case, the margin assigned to the only

company investigated is based on adverse facts available. Therefore,

consistent with the

[[Page 59532]]

SAA, at 873, we are using an alternative method. As our alternative, we

are basing the all others rate on a simple average of all the margins

in the petition, both price-to-price comparison and constructed value

(``CV''). As a result, the all-others rate is 39.69 percent.

Suspension of Liquidation

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

U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct Customs to require a

cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the percentage margins

as indicated in the chart below. These suspension-of-liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until further notice. The dumping

margins are as follows:

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

Weighted-average

Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage

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

Acciai Speciali Terni SpA.......................... 45.09

All Others......................................... 39.69

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

The all-others rate, which we derived from the average of the

margins calculated in the petition, applies to all entries of subject

merchandise other than those exported by the named respondent.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying 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 these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

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 the preliminary

determination, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case

briefs, no later than 55 days after the publication of the preliminary

determination. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of

issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such

summary should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing,

if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing

will be held on December 28, 1998, time and room to be determined, at

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

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. 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 30 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.

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

this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final

determination by January 10, 1999.

This determination is issued and published in accordance with

sections 733(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: October 27, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-29545 Filed 11-3-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P