[Federal Register: July 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 42373-42377]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17jy03-40]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-820]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Prestressed Concrete Steel
Wire Strand From Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary determination of sales at less than fair
value, postponement of final determination, and negative preliminary
determination of critical circumstances.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Henninger or Amber Musser at
(202) 482-3003 or (202) 482-1777, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement
Group II Office 5, Import Administration, Room 1870, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that prestressed concrete steel wire
strand (PC strand) from Thailand is being sold, or is likely to be
sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided
in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. The estimated
margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of Liquidation
section of this notice. In addition, we preliminarily determine that
critical circumstances do not exist with respect to PC strand produced
and exported by the respondent in this investigation as well as all
other producers/exporters.
Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary
determination. We will make our final determination not later than 135
days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination in
the Federal Register.
Case History
This investigation was initiated on February 20, 2003.\1\ See
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Prestressed
Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Brazil, India, the Republic of Korea,
Mexico, and Thailand, 68 FR 9050 (February 27, 2003) (Initiation
Notice). Since the initiation of the investigation, the following
events have occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioners in this investigation are American Spring
Wire Corp., Insteel Wire Products Company, and Sumiden Wire Products
Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Commerce (the Department) set aside a period for
all interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage. See
Initiation Notice, 68 FR at 9050. No comments were received from
interested parties in this investigation.
The Department issued a letter on March 7, 2003, to interested
parties in all of the concurrent PC strand antidumping investigations,
providing an opportunity to comment on the Department's proposed model
match characteristics and its hierarchy of characteristics. The
petitioners submitted comments on March 18 and 20, 2003. The Department
also received comments on model matching from respondents in the
concurrent investigation involving Mexico on March 18, 2003. These
comments were taken into consideration by the Department in developing
the model matching characteristics and hierarchy for all of the PC
strand antidumping investigations.
On March 17, 2003, the United States International Trade Commission
(ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication
that imports of the products subject to this investigation are
materially injuring an industry in the United States producing the
domestic like product. See Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand From
Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand, 68 FR 13952 (March 21,
2003).
On April 4, 2003 the Department issued its antidumping
questionnaire to Siam Industrial Wire Co., Ltd. (SIW).\2\ We received
responses to sections A-D of the antidumping questionnaire and
[[Page 42374]]
issued supplementary questionnaires where appropriate. On June 17,
2003, the petitioners alleged that critical circumstances exist with
respect to imports of PC strand from Thailand. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 732(e) of the Act, on June 18, 2003, the Department requested
information from SIW regarding monthly shipments of PC strand to the
United States during the period January 2000 to July 2003. We
subsequently shortened this reporting period by one year. The
respondent submitted the requested information on June 25, 2003. The
critical circumstances analysis for the preliminary determination is
discussed below under Critical Circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section A of the questionnaire requests general information
concerning a company's corporate structure and business practices,
the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in
which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B
requests a complete listing of all home market sales or, if the home
market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country
market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market
economy cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales.
Section D requests information on the cost of production of the
foreign like product and the constructed value of the merchandise
under investigation. Section E requests information on further
manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination
may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the
publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an
affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement
is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of
exports of the subject merchandise. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.210(e)(2) the Department requires that exporters requesting
postponement of the final determination must also request an extension
of the provisional measures referred to in section 733(d) of the Act
from a four-month period until not more than six months. We received a
request to postpone the final determination from respondent, SIW. In
its request, SIW consented to the extension of provisional measures to
no longer than six months. Since this preliminary determination is
affirmative, the request for postponement is made by an exporter that
accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject
merchandise, and there is no compelling reason to deny the respondent's
request, we have extended the deadline for issuance of the final
determination until the 135th day after the date of publication of this
preliminary determination in the Federal Register and have extended
provisional measures to no longer than six months.
Selection of Respondents
Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs the Department to calculate
individual dumping margins for each known exporter and producer of the
subject merchandise. Where it is not practicable to examine all known
producer/exporters of subject merchandise, section 777A(c)(2) of the
Act permits the Department to investigate either: (1) A sample of
exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid,
based on the information available at the time of selection; or (2)
exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of the
subject merchandise that can reasonably be examined. In the petition,
the petitioners identified six producers of PC strand in Thailand. The
data on the record indicates that SIW is the only producer of the
subject merchandise in Thailand that exports to the United States. See
Memorandum from Daniel O'Brien, International Trade Compliance Analyst,
to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, Re: Selection of Respondents,
dated April 4, 2003.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2002, through
December 31, 2002. This period corresponds to the four most recent
fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e.,
January 2003) involving imports from a market economy, and is in
accordance with our regulations. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).
Scope of Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, PC strand is steel strand
produced from wire of non-stainless, non-galvanized steel, which is
suitable for use in prestressed concrete (both pretensioned and post-
tensioned) applications. The product definition encompasses covered and
uncovered strand and all types, grades, and diameters of PC strand.
The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under
subheadings 7312.10.3010 and 7312.10.3012 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, all products
produced by the respondent covered by the description in the Scope of
Investigation section, above, and sold in Thailand during the POI, are
considered to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We have relied on four
criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison-
market sales of the foreign like product: diameter, covering/coating,
grade, and type. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in
the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the
next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed above.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of PC strand from Thailand were made in
the United States at LTFV, we compared the constructed export price
(CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described in the Constructed Export
Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. In accordance with
section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated weighted-average
CEPs. We compared these to weighted-average home market prices in
Thailand. See Constructed Export Price, section below.
For the price to the United States, we used CEP, as defined in
section 772(b) of the Act. Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the
price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United
States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of
the producer or exporter of such merchandise or by a seller affiliated
with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the
producer or exporter, as adjusted under subsections 772(c) and (d) of
the Act.
Constructed Export Price
For SIW, we calculated CEP based on the packed prices charged to
the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We calculated a
CEP for SIW's sales, all of which were made by an affiliated reseller
in the United States prior to the date of importation by or for the
account of the producer.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions
from the starting price for movement expenses. These include inland
freight, international freight, foreign brokerage and handling, U.S.
warehousing expenses, U.S. duties, and U.S. freight forwarding
expenses. We also added duty drawback, in accordance with section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to
calculate CEP. Accordingly, we deducted from the starting price those
selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise
in the United States, including commission and other direct selling
expenses (credit and warranty expenses) and indirect selling expenses
related to commercial activity in the United States and added an amount
for interest revenue. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit,
in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Selection of Comparison Markets
Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price
at which
[[Page 42375]]
the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the
merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is
inappropriate), that the time of the sales reasonably corresponds to
the time of the sale used to determine export price (EP) or CEP, and
that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper
comparison with the EP or CEP. The statute contemplates that quantities
(or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less
than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the
subject merchandise to the United States.
We found that SIW had a viable home market for PC strand. As such,
the respondent submitted home market sales data for purposes of the
calculation of NV.
In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation
of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices and Calculation of Normal
Value Based on Constructed Value sections below.
B. Cost of Production Analysis
Based on allegations contained in the petition, and in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that PC strand sales were made in Thailand at prices
below the cost of production (COP). See Initiation Notice, 68 FR at
9050. As a result, the Department has conducted an investigation to
determine whether SIW made home market sales at prices below their
respective COPs during the POI within the meaning of section 773(b) of
the Act. We conducted the COP analysis described below.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for the home
market general and administrative (G&A) expenses, including interest
expenses and packing expenses.
We relied on the COP information submitted by SIW in its cost
questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments:
a. We disallowed SIW's claimed labor and overhead adjustment
factors.
b. We adjusted SIW's financial expense and G&A ratios in accordance
with the Department's change in the treatment of foreign exchange gains
and losses.
c. We adjusted SIW's G&A ratio to exclude gain on forward hedging
and gain on stock valuation.
See Memorandum from James Balog, Accountant, to Neal Halper,
Director, Office of Accounting, Re: Cost of Production Calculation
Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination, dated July 10, 2003.
SIW departed from its normal accounting records in allocating labor
and overhead costs to specific dimensions of PC strand products
produced. In departing from its normal books and records, SIW claimed
that it relied on engineering information to determine adjustment
ratios. In our supplemental questionnaire issued on June 13, 2003, we
requested that SIW provide supporting information for the engineering
factors used. However, SIW failed to provide adequate support and
explanation for the derivation of these adjustment factors. As such,
for the preliminary determination, we did not rely on the production
engineering information used by SIW to adjust the standard labor and
overhead costs maintained in its normal books and records and instead,
relied on facts otherwise available. Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (D) of
the Act provide that if an interested party withholds information that
has been requested, or provides information which cannot be verified,
the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the
Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination. Pursuant to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act the
Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all
of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted
by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3)
the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
When asked to submit additional information to support its
adjustments, SIW failed to adequately do so in its June 27, 2003,
supplemental section D response. We believe the information provided to
support SIW's adjustments was incomplete and cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching a determination. As facts otherwise available, we
relied on the labor and overhead cost allocations as maintained in its
normal books and records, unadjusted. On July 10, 2003, we issued a
second supplemental D questionnaire giving SIW another opportunity to
provide the requested information. The due date for submission of this
information is July 17, 2003.
2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices
We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP for SIW to its home-
market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under
section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been
made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (i.e., a
period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices
were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time.
On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to the home
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts,
rebates, billing adjustments, and direct and indirect selling expenses
(which were also deducted from COP).
3. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, which provides that sales
made below COP may be disregarded only if, among other things, they are
made in ``substantial quantities'' (i.e., 20 percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given product), we did not disregard any below-
cost sales because we determined that the below-cost sales were not
made in ``substantial quantities.'' As this was the case for all
products sold in the home market, we did not disregard any sales as
below-cost.
C. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices
We determined NV for the respondent company as follows. We made
adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market
movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for
differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act by deducting billing adjustments,
discounts, rebates, and direct selling expenses incurred for home
market sales (credit expenses).
D. Arm's-Length Sales
SIW reported sales of the foreign like product to an affiliated
end-user customer and an affiliated reseller. To test whether these
sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where
possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling
expenses, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on
average, between 98 and 102 percent of the price to unaffiliated
parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at
arm's length. See Antidumping Proceedings:
[[Page 42376]]
Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186,
(November 15, 2002). SIW's sales to its affiliated end-user customer
did not fall within that range and were excluded from our analysis.
SIW's sales to its affiliated reseller fell within that range, and so
for the purposes of the preliminary determination, we have included
SIW's sales to its affiliated reseller in the determination of NV.
However, we are continuing to review SIW's reporting of its home market
sales to its affiliated reseller. On July 10, 2003, we issued a second
supplemental questionnaire requesting additional information regarding
these sales. The due date for submission of this information is July
17, 2003.
E. Level of Trade/Constructed Export Price Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV level of
trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For
CEP transactions, it is the level of the constructed sale from the
exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than the CEP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales
are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
In implementing these principles in this investigation, we obtained
information from SIW about the marketing stages involved for the
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the
selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of
distribution. In identifying levels of trade for home market sales we
considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before
any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses
pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act.
In conducting our level-of-trade analysis for the respondent, we
examined the specific types of customers, the channels of distribution,
and the selling practices of the respondent. Generally, if the reported
levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the
seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of
trade that are different for different categories of sales, the
functions and activities may be dissimilar. The following is a
discussion of our findings.
SIW has two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) Direct
sales to end customers, and (2) sales to an affiliated reseller. SIW's
selling functions, such as engineering services, advertising, packing,
and technical assistance, are identical for both channels of
distribution in the home market. Therefore, sales through both of these
channels are made at the same level of trade (LOT 0). In the U.S.
market, SIW has two channels of distribution: (1) Direct sales, and (2)
inventory sales. SIW's selling functions, such as advertising, packing,
and freight and delivery, are identical for these two channels of
distribution. Therefore, all of SIW's U.S. sales are CEP sales made at
the same level of trade (LOT 1).
With regard to the U.S. sales, we considered only the selling
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and
profit covered in section 772(d) of the Act. After we deducted the
expenses and profit covered in section 772(d), we determined that SIW
performs more selling functions for sales made in the home market, than
for sales made to its U.S. affiliate, Cementhai SCT USA. In the home
market SIW provides additional selling functions, such as engineering
services and technical assistance, processing rebates and cash
discounts, performing sales forecasting, strategic planning and
marketing research, and employing direct sales and marketing personnel.
There is only one level of trade in the home market and we have no
other appropriate information on which to determine if there is a
pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV
is based and comparison market sales at the level of trade of the
export transactions. As a result, we are granting a CEP offset pursuant
to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Currency Conversions
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act based on exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sale, as obtained from the Federal Reserve Bank (the
Department's preferred source for exchange rates).
Critical Circumstances
On June 17, 2003, petitioners alleged that there is a reasonable
basis to believe or suspect critical circumstances exist with respect
to the antidumping investigations of PC strand from Thailand. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i), because petitioners submitted
critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the
scheduled date of the preliminary determination, the Department must
issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations not later than
the date of the preliminary determination.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department, upon
receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, 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 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.
According to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1), in determining whether imports
of the subject merchandise have been ``massive,'' the Department
normally will examine: (i) The volume and value of the imports; (ii)
seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted
for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that
``unless the imports during a ``relatively short period'' have
increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately
preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not
consider the imports massive.''
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(i) the Department defines
``relatively short period'' as generally the period beginning on the
date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) and
ending at least three months later. This section further provides that,
if the Department finds that importers, exporters or producers had
reason to believe at some time prior to the filing of the petition that
a proceeding was likely, then the Department may consider a period of
not less than three months from that earlier time.
In determining whether the above statutory criteria have been
satisfied, we examined: (1) The evidence presented in the petitioners'
submission of June 17, 2003; (2) exporter-specific shipment
[[Page 42377]]
data requested by the Department; (3) import data available through the
ITC's DataWeb Web site; and (4) the ITC preliminary injury
determination.
To determine whether a history of dumping and material injury
exists, the Department generally considers current or previous
antidumping duty orders on the subject merchandise from the country in
question in the United States and current orders in any other country.
The Department will normally not consider the initiation of a case, nor
a preliminary or final determination of sales at LTFV in the absence of
an affirmative finding of material injury by the ITC, as indicative of
a history sufficient to satisfy this criterion. See Preliminary
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). With
regard to imports of PC strand from Thailand, the petitioners make no
specific mention of a history of dumping. We are not aware of any
antidumping order in the United States or elsewhere on PC strand from
Thailand. For this reason, the Department does not find a history of
injurious dumping of the subject merchandise from Thailand pursuant to
section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
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 PC strand at LTFV, the Department must rely on the facts
before it at the time the determination is made. The Department
normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for EP sales and 15
percent or more for CEP sales sufficient to impute knowledge of
dumping. See e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's
Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997). The Department
generally bases its decision, with respect to knowledge, on the margins
calculated in the preliminary determination. Because the preliminary
dumping margin for the respondent is less than 15 percent, we find
there is no reasonable basis to impute knowledge of dumping with
respect to these imports from Thailand.
It is also the Department's practice to conduct its critical
circumstances analysis of companies in the ``all others'' category
based on the experience of the investigated company. Because we are
determining that critical circumstances do not exist for SIW in this
investigation, we are concluding that critical circumstances do not
exist for companies covered by the ``all others'' rate.
Accordingly, we find that critical circumstances do not exist for
imports of PC strand from Thailand. We will make a final determination
concerning critical circumstances for all producers and exporters of
subject merchandise from Thailand when we make our final determination
in this investigation, which will be 135 days after the date of
publication of the preliminary determination.
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify
all information relied upon in making our final determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing
the BCBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of PC strand from
Thailand, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. We are also instructing the BCBP to require a cash
deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average dumping
margin as indicated in the chart below. These instructions suspending
liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Producer/exporter margin
(percentage)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam Industrial Wire Co., Ltd............................. 11.52
All Others................................................ 11.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five
days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties in this
proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
International Trade Commission Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of the Department's preliminary affirmative determination. If the
final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will
determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this
preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination
whether imports of PC strand from Thailand are materially injuring, or
threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs on the later
of 50 days after the date of publication of this notice or one week
after the issuance of the verification reports. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to
the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days
after the deadline for the submission of case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an
executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to
the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages
total, including footnotes. Further, we request that parties submitting
briefs and rebuttal briefs provide the Department with a copy of the
public version of such briefs on diskette.
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. If a request
for a hearing is made, we will tentatively hold the hearing two days
after the deadline for submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, at a time and in a room to be determined. Parties
should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing
48 hours before the scheduled date.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
in a hearing 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 date of 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. At the hearing, oral presentations will be
limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). The
Department will make its final determination no later than 135 days
after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 10, 2003.
Jeffrey May,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-18129 Filed 7-16-03; 8:45 am]