Federal Register, Volume 63 Issue 43 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10831-10835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-820]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Stainless Steel Wire Rod
From Italy

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 5, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Thompson, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-1776.

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's regulations are
to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that stainless steel wire rod (SSWR)
from Italy 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 of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this investigation (Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Investigations: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Germany,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan, 62 FR 45224 (August 26,
1997)), the following events have occurred:
During August and September 1997, the Department obtained
information from the U.S. Embassy in Italy identifying potential
producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise to the United
States. Based on this information, in September 1997, the Department
issued antidumping questionnaires to the following companies:
Acciaierie Valbruna S.r.l. (including its subsidiary Acciaierie di
Bolzano SpA) (collectively ``Valbruna''), Cogne Acciai Speciali S.r.l.
(CAS), and Rodacciai SpA (Rodacciai).
Also in September 1997, the United States International Trade
Commission (ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination
in this case (see ITC Investigation No. 731-TA-770).
In October 1997, the Department received responses to Section A of
the questionnaire from CAS, Rodacciai, and Valbruna. In its response,
Rodacciai requested that it not be required to complete the remainder
of the questionnaire because it sold only a small volume of SSWR to the
United States during the period of investigation (POI). Based on this
claim and because the petitioners did not object, we instructed this
company that it did not have to respond to the remainder of the
questionnaire, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.204(c).
In November 1997, CAS and Valbruna (hereinafter ``the
respondents'') submitted responses to sections B and C of the
questionnaire.
On December 4, 1997, the petitioners submitted a timely allegation
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act that CAS had made sales in the
home market at prices below the cost of production (COP). Based on our
analysis of this allegation, we initiated a COP investigation with
respect to CAS and informed this company that it needed to complete
section D of the questionnaire.
On December 11, 1997, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act,
the petitioners made a timely request to postpone the preliminary
determination. On December 16, 1997, we granted this request and
postponed the preliminary determination until no later than February
25, 1998 (62 FR 66849, Dec. 22, 1997).
We issued supplemental questionnaires to the respondents in
December 1997 and received responses to these questionnaires in January
1998. We also received a response to section D of the questionnaire
from CAS in January 1998.
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on February 11 and 12,
1998, the respondents requested that, in the event of an affirmative
preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department
postpone its final determination until no later than 135 days after the
publication of this notice in the Federal Register and extend the
provisional measures pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act from four
months to not more than six months. For further discussion, see the
``Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures'' section of this notice.
In February 1998, we issued additional supplemental sales
questionnaires to both respondents and a supplemental cost
questionnaire to CAS. Also in February 1998, both respondents submitted
revised sales listings which contained data that they corrected for
minor input errors. Although this data was received too late for use in
the preliminary determination, we will consider it for purposes of the
final determination.

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional
Measures

On February 11 and 12, 1998, the respondents requested that, in the
event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this
investigation, the Department postpone its final determination until no
later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal
Register, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The respondents
also requested that the Department extend the provisional measures
pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act from four months to not more than
six months. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(e), because: (1) Our
preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) The respondents account
for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; (3)
No compelling reasons for denial exist; and (4) Respondents have
requested an extension of provisional measures, we are granting this
request and are postponing the final determination until no later than
135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

[[Page 10832]]

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, SSWR comprises products that
are hot-rolled or hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled and/or descaled
rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons or other shapes, in coils, that may
also be coated with a lubricant containing copper, lime or oxalate.
SSWR is made of alloy steels containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less
of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other
elements. These products are manufactured only by hot-rolling or hot-
rolling, annealing, and/or pickling and/or descaling, are normally sold
in coiled form, and are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR
sold in the United States is round in cross-sectional shape, annealed
and pickled, and later cold-finished into stainless steel wire or
small-diameter bar.
The most common size for such products is 5.5 millimeters or 0.217
inches in diameter, which represents the smallest size that normally is
produced on a rolling mill and is the size that most wire-drawing
machines are set up to draw. The range of SSWR sizes normally sold in
the United States is between 0.20 inches and 1.312 inches diameter. Two
stainless steel grades, SF20T and K-M35FL, are excluded from the scope
of the investigation. The chemical makeup for the excluded grades is as
follows:

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF20T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon............................ 0.05 max............. Chromium............. 19.00/21.00.
Manganese......................... 2.00 max............. Molybdenum........... 1.50/2.50.
Phosphorous....................... 0.05 max............. Lead................. Added (0.10/0.30).
Sulfur............................ 0.15 max............. Tellurium............ Added (0.03 min).
Silicon........................... 1.00 max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K-M35FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon............................ 0.015 max............ Nickel............... 0.30 max.
Silicon........................... 0.70/1.00............ Chromium............. 12.50/14.00.
Manganese......................... 0.40 max............. Lead................. 0.10/0.30.
Phosphorous....................... 0.04 max............. Aluminum............. 0.20/0.35.
Sulfur............................ 0.03 max
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The products under investigation are currently classifiable under
subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, and
7221.00.0075 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 scope of this
investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The POI is July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of SSWR from Italy to the United States
were made at less than fair value, we compared the Export Price (EP) to
the Normal Value (NV), as described in the ``Export Price'' and
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice, below. As discussed in the
``Export Price'' section of this notice, neither respondent made
Constructed Export Price (CEP) sales to the United States. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we calculated
weighted-average EPs for comparison to weighted-average NVs.
On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir.).
In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court
discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as the
basis for foreign market value when the Department finds home market
sales to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was
not raised by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended
the definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to
include sales below cost. See Section 771(15) of the Act. Consequently,
the Department has reconsidered its practice in accordance with this
court decision and has determined that it would be inappropriate to
resort directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis
for NV if the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise
identical or most similar to that sold in the United States to be
outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the Department will
use sales of similar merchandise, if such sales exist. The Department
will use CV as the basis for NV only when there are no above-cost sales
that are otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, in this
proceeding, when making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16)
of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as
described in the ``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice,
above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the
ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics listed in
Sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire. We have implemented
the Court's decision in this case, to the extent that the data on the
record permitted.
In instances where a respondent has reported a non-AISI grade (or
an internal grade code) for a product that falls within a single AISI
category, we have used the actual AISI grade rather than the non-AISI
grade reported by the respondents for purposes of our analysis.
However, in instances where the chemical content ranges of reported
non-AISI (or an internal grade code) grades are outside the parameters
of an AISI grade, we have preliminarily used the grade code reported by
the respondents for analysis purposes. We intend to examine this issue
further for the final determination.
In certain instances, CAS did not provide sufficient information to
determine what constituted the next most similar foreign like product.
In those situations, we based NV on CV for the preliminary
determination. We have issued a supplemental questionnaire to CAS in
order to collect the information necessary to make price-to-price
comparisons whenever possible for purposes of the final determination.
In addition, Valbruna defined particular models of SSWR (i.e.,
control numbers) using the four product characteristics specified in
the questionnaire as well as a fifth characteristic, shape. The
Department's

[[Page 10833]]

practice in past steel cases has been to require respondents to assign
control numbers using only the product characteristics requested by the
Department. See Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Finland:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 2792,
2795 (Jan. 29, 1996). Therefore, we have revised the reported control
numbers so as not to distinguish individual shapes of SSWR because we
did not identify this characteristic specifically in the questionnaire.
We recomputed the costs used in Valbruna's difference-in-merchandise
adjustments (difmers) accordingly.

Level of Trade

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. The NV level of trade is that
of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is
based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive selling, general
and administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For EP, the U.S. level
of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually
from exporter to importer. For CEP, 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 EP (or CEP) sales, 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. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov.
19, 1997).
Neither CAS nor Valbruna claimed a level-of-trade adjustment.
Nevertheless, we evaluated whether such an adjustment was necessary by
examining each respondent's distribution system, including selling
functions, classes of customers, and selling expenses. We found that
the selling functions performed by each respondent, which included
sales administration and billing, provision of warranty services, and
in some cases arranging freight services, are sufficiently similar in
the U.S. and the home markets to consider them as constituting the same
level of trade in the two markets. Accordingly, all comparisons are at
the same level of trade and an adjustment pursuant to section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act is not warranted. See Memorandum regarding
Level of Trade Analysis from the Team to the File, dated February 25,
1998.

Export Price

For both respondents, we used EP methodology, 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 CEP methodology was not otherwise indicated.
We made company-specific adjustments as follows:

A. CAS

We calculated EP based on packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting
price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, international
freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and
handling expenses, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
CAS failed to report U.S. customs duties and U.S. brokerage and
handling expenses for certain U.S. sales. Therefore, we find that the
application of facts available is warranted. Additionally, we find that
CAS failed to act to the best of its ability in reporting these U.S.
expenses and, accordingly, we based the amount of these expenses on
adverse facts available. As adverse facts available, we used the
highest duty and brokerage amount reported for any of CAS's other U.S.
sales.

B. Valbruna

We calculated EP based on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States. We made deductions from the starting price, where
appropriate, for international freight (including foreign inland
freight, ocean freight, and marine insurance), U.S. customs duties,
harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees, and U.S. brokerage
and handling expenses, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we
compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because each
respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market
was viable for each respondent.

A. CAS

Based on the cost allegation submitted by the petitioners, the
Department found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that CAS had
made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. As a
result, the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether
CAS made home market sales during the POI at prices below their
respective COPs, within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See
Memorandum regarding Initiation of Cost Investigation from the Team to
Louis Apple, dated December 15, 1997. Before making any fair value
comparisons, we conducted the COP analysis described below.
We calculated the COP based on the sum of CAS's cost of materials
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for home
market SG&A and packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of
the Act. We adjusted CAS's reported COP by adding interest expenses on
currency options and deducting profits on transfers of securities in
the calculation of financial expenses. See Memorandum regarding Cost
Calculation Adjustments from William Jones to Chris Marsh, dated
February 25, 1998.
We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market sales
of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the
Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices
below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home
market prices, less any applicable movement charges and discounts.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: (1) In
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and (2) at
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time in the normal course of trade. See section 773(b)(1) of
the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of CAS's sales of a given product were at prices less than the
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product

[[Page 10834]]

because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of CAS's sales of
a given product during the POI were at prices less than the COP, we
determined such sales to have been made in ``substantial quantities''
within an extended period of time in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such
sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost
sales. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below the
COP, we disregarded all sales of that product.
We found that, for certain models of SSWR, more than 20 percent of
CAS's home market sales within an extended period of time were at
prices less than COP. Further, the prices did not provide for the
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore
disregarded the below-cost sales and used the remaining above-cost
sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of SSWR for which there were
no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we
compared EPs to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of CAS's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A, profit,
and U.S. packing costs. As noted above, we adjusted CAS's reported
costs for interest expenses on currency options and profits on
transfers of securities. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the
Act, we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by
CAS in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like
product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in Italy.
For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices
above the COP, we based NV on packed, delivered prices to home market
customers. We made additions to the starting price, where appropriate,
for alloy surcharges. We made deductions, where appropriate, for
discounts. We also made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign
inland freight and insurance expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(B)
of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments by adding U.S.
credit (offset by interest revenue), warranty expenses and commissions.
We made no adjustment for home market credit expenses because CAS based
its credit periods on estimates rather than on the accounts receivable
information requested in the supplemental questionnaire. We also made
no adjustment for home market warranty expenses because CAS failed to
provide supporting documentation, as requested in the supplemental
questionnaire. Moreover, we made no adjustment for imputed credit
expenses related to the pre-payment of value-added taxes (VAT) in
accordance with our long-standing practice. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sulfur Dyes, Including
Sulfur Vat Dyes, from the United Kingdom, 58 FR 3253 (Jan. 8, 1993)
(Sulfur Dyes from the U.K.), Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Not Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, 59 FR 66921
(Dec. 28, 1994) (Stainless Steel Bar from Italy), and Ferrosilicon from
Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR
59407 (Nov. 22, 1996) (Ferrosilicon from Brazil).
Because CAS paid commissions to unaffiliated agents on sales to the
United States, in calculating NV, we offset these commissions using the
weighted-average amount of indirect selling expenses, including
inventory carrying costs, incurred on the home market sales for the
comparison product, up to the amount of the U.S. commissions, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e).
We added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)
of the Act. We made no adjustment for home market packing costs because
CAS failed to provide supporting documentation, as requested in the
supplemental questionnaire. When appropriate, we made adjustments to NV
to account for differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.411.
When NV was based on CV, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments
by adding U.S. credit, warranty expenses, and commissions. We made no
adjustments for home market credit and warranty expenses for the
reasons noted above. We offset U.S. commissions by using the weighted-
average amount of indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying
costs incurred on the home market sales for the comparison product, up
to the amount of the U.S. commissions, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.410(e).

B. Valbruna

We based NV on packed prices to home market customers. We made
deductions, where appropriate, for discounts. We also made deductions,
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We made no adjustment for Valbruna's claimed
pre-sale warehousing expenses because: (1) These expenses largely are
not warehousing expenses; and (2) Valbruna did not separately state any
amount of expenses that related to warehousing. We also made no
adjustment for certain inland freight expenses because these expenses
were based on data outside the POI.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where
appropriate, for differences in credit expenses and commissions. We
recomputed Valbruna's home market interest rate to exclude the short-
term portion of a long-term loan and recalculated home market credit
expenses accordingly. Moreover, we made no adjustment for imputed
credit expenses related to the pre-payment of VAT, in accordance with
our long-standing practice. See, e.g., Sulfur Dyes from the U.K.,
Stainless Steel Bar from Italy, and Ferrosilicon from Brazil. We also
made no adjustment for inventory carrying costs incurred at one of
Valbruna's service centers because Valbruna did not provide an adequate
justification as to why these expenses should be considered direct
selling expenses.
Because Valbruna paid commissions to unaffiliated agents on home
market sales, in calculating NV, we offset these commissions using the
weighted-average amount of indirect selling expenses, including
inventory carrying costs, incurred on the U.S. sales for the particular
product in question, up to the amount of the home market commissions,
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e).
We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs,
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act. We reclassified the
fixed overhead portion of the reported packing expenses as part of
Valbruna's cost of manufacturing. Where appropriate, we made
adjustments to NV to account for differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the
exchange rates

[[Page 10835]]

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars
unless the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's
practice to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate
differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is
defined as the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days.
When we determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the
benchmark rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established
practice. Further, section 773A(b) of the Act directs the Department to
allow a 60-day adjustment period when a currency has undergone a
sustained movement. A sustained movement has occurred when the weekly
average of actual daily rates exceeds the weekly average of benchmark
rates by more than five percent for eight consecutive weeks. (For an
explanation of this method, see Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency
Conversions (61 FR 9434, Mar. 8, 1996).) Such an adjustment period is
required only when a foreign currency is appreciating against the U.S.
dollar. The use of an adjustment period was not warranted in this case
because the Italian lira did not undergo a sustained movement.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all
information determined to be acceptable for use 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 entries of SSWR from
Italy--except those produced and exported by Valbruna--that are
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the
date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Normally,
we would instruct the 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 export price, as indicated in the chart below.
However, the product under investigation is also subject to a
concurrent countervailing duty investigation. Article VI.5 of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994) provides that ``[n]o
product * * * shall be subject to both antidumping and countervailing
duties to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export
subsidization.'' This provision is implemented by section 772(c)(1)(C)
of the Act. Since antidumping duties cannot be assessed on the portion
of the margin attributed to export subsidies, there is no reason to
require a cash deposit or bond for that amount. The Department has
determined, in its Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty
Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination
With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Certain Stainless Steel Wire
Rod from Italy, 63 FR 809 (Jan. 7, 1998), that the product under
investigation benefitted from export subsidies. To obtain the most
accurate estimate of antidumping duties and to fulfill our
international obligations arising under GATT 1994, we are subtracting,
for deposit purposes, the cash deposit rate attributable to the export
subsidies found in the countervailing duty investigation (i.e., 0.01
percent for CAS). We are also subtracting from the ``All Others'' rate
the cash deposit rate attributable to the export subsidies included in
the countervailing duty investigation for the All Others rate, 0.06
percent.
In keeping with Article of 17.4 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures, the Department will terminate the
suspension of liquidation in the companion countervailing duty
investigation of certain stainless steel wire rod from Italy, effective
May 7, 1998, which is 120 days after the date of publication of the
preliminary determination. Accordingly, on May 7, 1998, the antidumping
deposit rate will revert to the full amount calculated in this
preliminary determination. These suspension of liquidation instructions
will remain in effect until further notice. The preliminary weighted-
average dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average Bonding
Exporter/manufacturer margin percentage
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acciaierie Valbruna/Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA... 1.17 N/A
Cogne Acciai Speciali S.r.l..................... 5.77 5.76
All Others...................................... 5.77 5.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the Department has
excluded all zero and de minimis weighted-average dumping margins from
the calculation of the ``All Others'' rate.

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 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 May 22, 1998, and rebuttal briefs no later than May 29,
1998. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues
must 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 June 2, 1998, time and room to be determined, at the
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 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 no later than 135 days after the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register.
This determination is published pursuant to section 777(i) of the
Act.

Dated: February 25, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-5598 Filed 3-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P