Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

| Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-and-a-half-years collection of 47,000 files from June 1996 to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,100 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost.

Web | cryptome.org | cryptome.info | jya.com | eyeball-series.org | cryptome.cn

    11 June 1997
    Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html

    See related orders:
    http://jya.com/ita-china.htm
    http://jya.com/ita-so-africa.htm
    http://jya.com/ita-ukraine.htm

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

    [Federal Register: June 11, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 112)]
    [Notices]
    [Page 31967-31972]
    From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
    [DOCID:fr11jn97-159]

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

    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    International Trade Administration
    [A-821-808]

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

    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
    Department of Commerce.

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

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

    EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1997.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nithya Nagarajan, Eugenia Chu, or Yury
    Beyzarov, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
    U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193, (202) 482-3964, or
    (202) 482-2243, respectively.

    The Applicable Statute

        Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
    references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
    date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the
    Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
    indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
    current regulations, as codified at 19 CFR part 353 (April 1, 1996).

    Preliminary Determination

        We determine preliminarily that certain cut-to-length carbon steel
    plate from the Russian Federation is being, or is likely to be, sold in
    the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in
    section 733 of the Act. The estimated margins are shown in the
    ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.

    Case History

        Since the initiation of this investigation (61 FR 64051, December
    3, 1996), the following events have occurred:
        On December 19, 1996, the United States International Trade
    Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary determination in
    this case (see ITC Investigations Nos. 731-TA-753-756). The ITC found
    that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United
    States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the
    Russian Federation of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate.
        The Department issued its antidumping questionnaires to the Russian
    Embassy on December 20, 1996, and requested the Embassy to forward the
    documents to all Russian producers/exporters of certain cut-to-length
    carbon steel plate, as well as to manufacturers who produced the
    subject merchandise for companies who were engaged in exporting subject
    merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. We
    requested the Embassy to inform these companies that they must respond
    by the due dates. We also sent courtesy copies to the companies whose
    names and complete addresses had been identified in the petition.
        On January 8, 1997, the Department conducted a questionnaire
    presentation in the Russian Federation. Attending the presentation were
    officials from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and
    potential producers/exporters of certain cut-to-length carbon steel
    plate.
        On January 10, 1997, Geneva Steel Company and Gulf States Steel
    Company (petitioners), alleged that critical circumstances exist with
    respect to imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the
    Russian Federation. This issue is addressed in the ``Preliminary
    Determination of Critical Circumstances'' section of this notice.
        On February 6, 1997, the Department provided interested parties
    with the opportunity to submit published, publicly available
    information for the Department to consider when valuing the factors of
    production and for surrogate country selection. We received comments
    from interested parties at the end of February 1997.
        In January and February 1997, one Russian company, JSC Severstal
    (Severstal), submitted responses to sections A, C, and D of the
    questionnaire. Severstal is a Russian exporter of subject merchandise.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to this respondent company on
    March 7, 1997 and received completed responses on April 4, and 11,
    1997.
        Severstal reported that it sold subject merchandise through
    unrelated trading companies at the port of export in Russia or the
    Baltic states. In light of this fact, the Department concluded that
    clarification was required as to whether these resellers sold
    additional subject

    [[Page 31968]]

    merchandise (unreported by the respondents) to the United States.
    Therefore, in March 1997, we also issued trading company questionnaires
    to Severstal's resellers. However, we received no responses.
        Also in March, in response to the Russian government's comments on
    Russia's nonmarket economy (NME) status, the Department issued the
    Russian government a questionnaire to clarify whether the Russian
    Federation's NME status should be revoked. However, on March 28, 1997,
    the Russian Federation informed the Department that it will not be
    seeking market-economy status in this proceeding. This issue is
    addressed in the ``Nonmarket Economy Country Status'' section of this
    notice.
        Except for Severstal, none of the other companies served with a
    questionnaire responded to the Department's original questionnaire.
        On April 15, 1997, petitioners submitted a request that the scope
    of their petitions be amended to include three items--plate in coil;
    plate made to carbon plate specifications regardless of alloy content;
    and plate sold to nominal plate thicknesses whose actual thickness is
    slightly less than the thickness of plate but within specified
    thickness tolerances. With respect to plate in coil, petitioners
    maintain that this product has essentially the same physical
    characteristics and end uses as cut-to-length plate. Petitioners
    further claim that a post-initiation shift has occurred in the pattern
    of trade from cut-to-length plate to plate in coil form, and that such
    a development indicates that any eventual order on cut-to-length plate
    will be susceptible to circumvention. Petitioners submitted additional
    information on May 9, 1997. Respondents submitted extensive rebuttal
    comments on April 25, 1997, and May 30, 1997.
        Because of the very recent submission of arguments on these complex
    and technical subjects, we were unable to fully analyze all of the
    relevant information on the record prior to this preliminary
    determination. In order to fully examine petitioners' claims, we intend
    to carefully examine all evidence and argument on the record regarding
    this matter and issue a decision as soon as possible.
        On April 30, 1997 (62 FR 23433) we further postponed the
    preliminary determination until not later than June 3, 1997.

    Scope of the Investigation

        The products covered by this investigation are hot-rolled iron and
    non-alloy steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products
    rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150
    mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm,
    not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape,
    neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted,
    varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and
    certain iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of
    rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with
    metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or
    other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a
    width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness.
    Included as subject merchandise in this petition are flat-rolled
    products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is
    achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have
    been ``worked after rolling'')--for example, products which have been
    bevelled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently
    classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS)
    under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030,
    7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000,
    7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045,
    7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000. Although the
    HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
    written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Period of Investigation

        The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 1996, through
    September 30, 1996.

    Nonmarket Economy Country Status

        The Department has treated the Russian Federation as a nonmarket
    economy country (NME) in all past antidumping investigations and
    administrative reviews (see, e.g., Titanium Sponge from the Russian
    Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review,
    62 FR 25920 (May 12, 1997); Notice of Final Determination of Sale at
    Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the
    Russian Federation, 60 FR 16440 (March 30, 1995); Notice of Preliminary
    Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of the
    Final Determination: Ferrovanadium and Nitridid Vanadium from the
    Russian Federation, 60 FR 438 (January 4, 1995)). A designation as an
    NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department (see
    section 771(18)(C) of the Act). Therefore, for this preliminary
    determination, the Department will continue to treat the Russian
    Federation as an NME.
        On January 9, 1997 the Russian Federation submitted a filing, on
    the record, requesting market economy status. The filing consisted of a
    letter and several Russian laws. On March 25, 1997, the Department
    drafted a questionnaire addressed to the Department of the Ministry for
    Foreign Economic Relations of the Russian Federation requesting
    additional information for Market Economy Status. On April 22, 1997,
    the Department contacted the Russian embassy via telephone regarding
    the Department's questionnaire on market economy status. The Embassy
    conveyed to Department personnel that the Russian Federation will not
    be seeking market economy status in this proceeding. Thus, the
    Department will continue to treat the Russian Federation as an NME.

    Surrogate Country

        When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
    773(c) of the Act directs the Department in most circumstances to base
    normal value (NV) on the NME producer's factors of production, valued
    in a surrogate market-economy country or countries considered
    appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4),
    the Department, in valuing the factors of production, shall utilize, to
    the extent possible, the prices or costs of factors of production in
    one or more market-economy countries that are comparable in terms of
    economic development to the NME country and are significant producers
    of comparable merchandise. The sources of individual factor prices are
    discussed under the NV section below.
        The Department has determined that Tunisia, Peru, Poland,
    Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey are countries comparable to
    the Russian Federation in terms of overall economic development. See
    Policy Memorandum, dated January 29, 1997.
        According to the available information on the record, we have
    determined that Brazil is an appropriate surrogate because it is at a
    comparable level of economic development and is a significant producer
    of comparable merchandise. Furthermore, there is a wide array of
    publicly available information for Brazil. Accordingly, we have
    calculated NV using Brazilian prices to value the Russian producers'

    [[Page 31969]]

    factors of production, when available and where appropriate. We have
    obtained and relied upon public information wherever possible.

    Separate Rates

        The Department presumes that a single dumping margin is appropriate
    for all exporters in a non market economy country. See Final
    Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
    the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon
    Carbide). The Department may, however, consider requests for a separate
    rate from individual exporters. Severstal has requested a separate,
    company-specific rate. The claimed ownership structure of Severstal
    during the POI is that of a publicly owned joint stock company, where
    the state owns 20% of the shares.
        To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
    government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
    analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final
    Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
    People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers) and
    amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the
    Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if a
    respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
    governmental control over export activities. For a complete analysis of
    separate rates, see Separate Rates Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.

    1. Absence of De Jure Control

        An individual company may be considered for separates rates if it
    meets the following de jure criteria: (1) An absence of restrictive
    stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and
    export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control
    of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government
    decentralizing control of companies. The respondents have placed on the
    administrative record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of
    de jure control. These documents include laws, regulations, and
    provisions enacted by the central government of the Russian Federation,
    describing the deregulation of Russian enterprise as well as the
    deregulation of the Russian export trade, except for a list of products
    that may be subject to central government export constraints.
    Respondents claim that the subject merchandise is not on this list.
    This information supports a preliminary finding that there is an
    absence of de jure government control. See Separate Rates Memorandum,
    dated June 3, 1997.

    2. Absence of De Facto Control

        The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating
    whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
    its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices (``EP'') are set by
    or subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the
    respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
    agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
    in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
    whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
    makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
    financing of losses.
        Severstal has asserted the following: (1) It establishes its own
    EPs; (2) it negotiates contracts, without guidance from any
    governmental entities or organizations; (3) it selects its own
    management; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses
    profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell
    its assets and to obtain loans. In addition, Severstal's questionnaire
    responses indicate that company-specific pricing during the POI does
    not suggest coordination among exporters. This information supports a
    preliminary finding that there is an absence of de facto governmental
    control of the export functions of these companies.
        Consequently, we determine preliminarily that Severstal meets the
    criteria for application of separate rates. See Separate Rates
    Memorandum, dated June 3, 1997.

    The Russia-Wide Rate

        U.S. import statistics indicate that the total quantity and value
    of U.S. imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from the
    Russian Federation is greater than the total quantity and value of
    steel plate reported by all Russian companies that submitted responses.
    Given this discrepancy, we conclude that not all exporters of Russian
    cut-to-length carbon steel plate responded to our questionnaire.
    Accordingly, we are applying a single antidumping deposit rate--the
    Russia-wide rate--to all exporters in the Russian Federation (other
    than Severstal), based on our presumption that those respondents who
    failed to respond constitute a single enterprise and are under common
    control by the Russian Federation government. See, e.g., Final
    Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles from the
    People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996).
        This Russia-wide antidumping rate is based on adverse facts
    available. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if an
    interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has
    been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide
    such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information
    or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
    (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this
    title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
    verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority * *
    * shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available
    in reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
        In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the
    Department finds that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by
    not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
    information,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to
    the interests of that party as the facts otherwise available. The
    statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on
    secondary information, including the information drawn from the
    petition.
        As discussed above, all Russian exporters that do not qualify for a
    separate rate are treated as a single enterprise. Because some
    exporters of the single enterprise failed to respond to the
    Department's requests for information, that single enterprise is
    considered to be uncooperative. In such situations, the Department
    generally selects as total facts available either the higher of the
    average of the margin from the petition or the highest rate calculated
    for a respondent in the proceeding. In the present case, the average
    margin in the petition is higher than the one calculated rate.
    Accordingly, the Department has based the Russia-wide rate on
    information in the petition. In this case, the average petition rate is
    185.00 percent.
        Section 776(c) of the Act provides that where the Department relies
    on ``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent
    practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
    reasonable at the Department's disposal. The Statement of
    Administrative Action (SAA), accompanying the URAA clarifies that the
    petition is ``secondary information'' and that ``corroborate'' means to
    determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at
    870.

    [[Page 31970]]

        In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we corroborated the
    margins in the petition to the extent practicable. The information
    contained in the petition shows that petitioners calculated export
    price based on two methods: (1) The import values declared to the U.S.
    Customs Service; and (2) an average export price derived from actual
    U.S. selling prices known to petitioners. We compared the starting
    prices used by petitioners less the importer mark-ups against prices
    derived from U.S. import statistics and found that the two sets of
    prices were consistent. We also compared the movement charges used in
    the petition with the surrogate values used by the Department in its
    margin calculations and found them to be consistent.
        The information in the petition with respect to the normal value
    (NV) is based on factors of production used by the petitioners in the
    production of steel plate. Petitioners submitted usage amounts for
    materials, labor and energy, adjusted for known differences in
    production efficiencies. Petitioners submitted three cost models in the
    petition: 1) Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) Cost Model; 2) Open-Hearth
    Furnace Cost Model; and 3) Weighted Average Normal Value of the BOF and
    Open-Hearth methods to account for differences between the production
    processes of petitioners and potential respondents.
        The margins in the petition ranged from 139.97 to 230.38 percent
    obtained by comparing the normal values to the export price developed
    from customs values and to export prices developed from actual U.S.
    price quotes. For each method, petitioners submitted estimated dumping
    margins for the BOF method, the open-hearth method and a weighted
    average of the two. For more detail, see Corroboration Memorandum,
    dated June 3, 1997.

    Fair Value Comparisons

        To determine whether certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from
    the Russian Federation sold to the United States by the Russian
    exporters receiving separate rates were made at less than fair value,
    we compared the EP to the NV, as specified in the ``Export Price'' and
    ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.

    Export Price

        For Severstal, we calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a)
    of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the
    first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation
    and constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise
    indicated. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we
    compared POI-wide weighted-average EPs to the factors of production.
        We made adjustments as follows: We calculated EP based on packed,
    FOB prices to the port of loading on the Russian territory. We made
    deductions from the starting price, where appropriate, for brokerage
    and handling. However, because these services were provided by the
    Russian port, these services were assigned a surrogate value as
    available from Brazilian publicly available published data.

    Normal Value

        In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
    based on factors of production reported by the factory in the Russian
    Federation which produced the cut-to-length carbon steel plate sold by
    Severstal. We valued all the input factors using publicly available
    published information as discussed in the Surrogate Country section of
    this notice.

    Factor Valuations

        The selection of the surrogate values was based on the quality and
    contemporaneity of the data. Where possible, we attempted to value
    material inputs on the basis of tax-exclusive domestic prices in the
    surrogate country. Where we were not able to rely on domestic prices,
    we used import prices to value factors. As appropriate, we adjusted
    input prices to make them delivered prices. For those values not
    contemporaneous with the POI, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale
    price indices or, in the case of labor rates, consumer price indices,
    published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial
    Statistics. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see Factors
    Memorandum.
        To value coal, coke, iron, lime, ferro alloys, packing materials
    (locks), and scrap, we used public information from the latest data
    published by the United Nations for 1996 (Commodity Trade Statistics
    1994, 3 Brazil Rev. 1995, at 19). For limestone, we used information
    from Commodity Trade Statistics 1993, Brazil Rev. 3, United Nations,
    1994. For packing (bands), we used information reported in data from
    the 1992 UN Import Statistics; Taken from the Department of Commerce
    NME Factors Index, case A-821-805.
        For natural gas, we relied on public information reported in the
    Diario Oficial No. 180, September 27, 1995. For electricity, we relied
    upon public information from the September 27, 1995 Official
    Publication of the Brazilian Government to obtain an average price for
    electricity.
        To value rail transport for coal and for iron ore, we used public
    information reported in the July 1996 Cargo and Transport Magazine
    (Confederaco Nacional de Transporte Brazil). The exchange rate used was
    .9970 US$/R$. The source for the exchange rate for rail transport was
    obtained from the IMF's International Financial Statistics, January
    1997, for the average during the POI.
        To value skilled labor, we used the County Reports on Human Rights
    Practices for 1996, from the U.S. Department of State. For unskilled
    labor, we relied on data obtained from a U.S. Department of Commerce
    cable dated October 1994. To value overhead, SG&A, and profit, we used
    public information reported in the 1996/1997 Brazil company handbook.
    These are the average percentages for various Brazilian iron and steel
    companies. To value brokerage, we relied on public information from
    Case No. A-351-817, Plate from Brazil, Usiminas, Section C Response at
    Exh.6, dated November 21, 1996.
        Severstal reported the amount of slag, a by-product of the plate
    production process, produced in the production of the subject
    merchandise. Normally, the Department offsets the calculated cost of
    manufacturing by the value of any by-products. The only surrogate value
    for slag from Brazil was aberrationally high when compared to an
    available U.S. rate. Based on our knowledge of the steelmaking process,
    we know that slag is a by-product with a relatively low value (compared
    to the price of steel plate). We were able to locate an appropriate
    value for slag from the U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodities
    Summaries from February 1997. We used the U.S. slag value for the
    preliminary determination. We will continue to try to locate an
    appropriate surrogate value from Brazil, or another country at a
    comparable level of development for our final determination.

    Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances

        On January 10, 1997, the petitioners alleged that there is a
    reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances
    exist with respect to imports of certain cut-to-length carbon steel
    plate. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.16(b)(2)(i) (1996), since these
    allegations were filed earlier than the deadline for the Department's
    preliminary determination, we must issue our preliminary critical

    [[Page 31971]]

    circumstances determinations not later than the preliminary
    determination.
        Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that if a petitioner alleges
    critical circumstances, the Department will determine whether there is
    a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) There is a
    history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in
    the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the
    person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew
    or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject
    merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be
    material injury by reason of such sales, and (B) there have been
    massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short
    period.
        The statute and the Statement of Administrative Action which
    accompanies the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (SAA) are silent as to how
    we are to make a finding that there was knowledge that there was likely
    to be material injury. Therefore, Congress has left the method of
    implementing this provision to the Department's discretion.
        In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or
    suspect that an importer knew or should have known that the exporter
    was selling the plate at less than fair value, the Department normally
    considers margins of 15 percent or more sufficient to impute knowledge
    of dumping for constructed export price (CEP) sales, and margins of 25
    percent or more for export price (EP) sales. See, e.g., Preliminary
    Critical Circumstances Determination: Honey from the People's Republic
    of China (PRC), 60 FR 29824 (June 6, 1995) (Honey). Since the company
    specific margins for EP sales in our preliminary determination for
    carbon steel plate are greater than 25 percent for Severstal, we have
    imputed knowledge of dumping.
        In determining whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or
    suspect that an importer knew or should have known that there was
    likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports, the
    Department normally will look to the preliminary injury determination
    of the ITC. If the ITC finds a reasonable indication of present
    material injury to the relevant U.S. industry, the Department will
    determine that a reasonable basis exists to impute importer knowledge
    that there was likely to be material injury by reason of dumped imports
    during the critical circumstances period--the 90-day period beginning
    with the initiation of the investigation (see 19 CFR 353.16(g)). If, as
    in this case, the ITC preliminarily finds threat of material injury
    (See Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa,
    and Ukraine, U.S. International Trade Commission, December 1996), the
    Department will also consider the extent of the increase in the volume
    of imports of the subject merchandise during the critical circumstances
    period and the magnitude of the margins in determining whether a
    reasonable basis exists to impute knowledge that material injury was
    likely.
        In this case, imports of Russian plate increased 145 percent in the
    three months following the initiation of the investigation when
    compared to the three months immediately preceding initiation, or
    almost ten times the level of increase needed to find ``massive
    imports'' during the same period (see below). Furthermore, we have
    preliminarily found margins of 61.23 percent for Severstal.
        Based on the ITC's preliminary determination of threat of injury,
    the increase in imports noted above, and the high preliminary margins,
    the Department determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe
    or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that there was
    likely to be material injury by means of sales of the subject
    merchandise at less than fair value.
        To determine whether imports were massive over a relatively short
    time period, the Department typically compares the import volume of the
    subject merchandise for the three months immediately preceding and
    following the initiation of the proceeding. See 19 CFR 353.16(g).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), the Department will consider an
    increase of 15 percent or more in the imports of the subject
    merchandise over the relevant period to be massive. As noted, imports
    of the subject merchandise increased 145 percent during the relevant
    period, and thus we determine that imports have been massive.
        Thus, because we determine that there is a reasonable basis to
    believe or suspect that the importer knew or should have known that
    Russian exporters were selling the subject merchandise at less than its
    fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of
    such sales, and that there have been massive imports of the subject
    merchandise over a relatively short time period, we preliminarily
    determine that critical circumstances exist for Severstal.
        For companies subject to the Russia-wide rate (i.e., companies
    which did not respond to the Department's questionnaire), we are
    imputing knowledge based on the Russia-wide rate, and determine, based
    on facts available, that there were massive imports of certain cut-to-
    length carbon steel plate by companies that did not respond to the
    Department's questionnaire. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that
    critical circumstances exist with regard to these companies.
        We find that critical circumstances exist for cut-to-length carbon
    steel plate sales by all Russian exporters.

    Verification

        As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the
    information used in making our final determination.

    Suspension of Liquidation

        In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the
    Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject from
    Ukraine, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
    on or after the date ninety days prior to the date of publication of
    this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct Customs Service
    to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the
    weighted-average amount by which the normal value exceeds the EP, as
    indicated below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will
    remain in effect until further notice.
        The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Weighted-
                                                                   average
                   Manufacturer/producer/exporter                   margin
                                                                  percentage
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Severstal..................................................        61.23
    The Russia-Wide Rate.......................................       185.00
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Russia-Wide Rate

        A Russia-wide rate has been assigned to certain cut-to-length
    carbon steel plate based on the average margin contained in the
    petition, as amended by the Department. The Russia-wide rate applies to
    all entries of subject merchandise except for entries from exporters/
    factories that are identified individually above.

    ITC Notification

        In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
    ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,
    the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of
    this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
    whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially
    injured, or threatened with

    [[Page 31972]]

    material injury, by reasons of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of
    sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise.

    Public Comment

        In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38 (1996), case briefs or other
    written comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the
    Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later than 50 days
    after the publication of this preliminary determination, and rebuttal
    briefs, no later than 5 days after the filing of case briefs. A list of
    authorities used and a summary of arguments made in the briefs should
    accompany these briefs. Such summary should be limited to five pages
    total, including footnotes. We will hold a public hearing, if
    requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on
    arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. The hearing will be held
    at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
    Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, time, date, and room to be
    determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and
    place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
        Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
    if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
    Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
    1870, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests
    should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number;
    (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be
    discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b) (1996), oral
    presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this
    investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final determination
    by August 18, 1997.
        This determination is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the
    Act.

        Dated: June 3, 1997.
    Robert S. LaRussa,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 97-15293 Filed 6-10-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P