66 FR 50401, October 3, 2001 A-823-811 Investigation Proprietary Document: PUBLIC VERSION IA/DAS III/IX: LME September 21, 2001 MEMORANDUM TO: Edward C. Yang Office Director AD/CVD Enforcement Group III/Office IX THROUGH: Rick Johnson Program Manager FROM: Lori Ellison Case Analyst RE: Final Determination of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Ukraine SUBJECT: Facts Available Corroboration Memorandum Background We published the preliminary determination in this investigation on May 3, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Ukraine, 66 FR 22152, (May 3, 2001) ("Preliminary Determination"). The period of investigation ("POI") is April 1, 2000, through September 30, 2000. Zaporizhstal Iron and Steel Works ("Zaporizhstal") is the sole participating respondent in this investigation. The other two Ukrainian producers of subject merchandise, Dnepropetrovsk Comintern Steel Works ("Dnepropetrovsk") and Ilyich Iron & Steel Works, Mariupol ("Ilyich") failed to respond to our requests for information. See id. at 22155 - 22157. For the purposes of our preliminary determination, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we applied a single Ukraine-wide antidumping duty rate, based on total adverse facts available, to all producers/exporters of hot- rolled steel in Ukraine. See id. (1) As total adverse facts available, we applied the highest dumping margin from the petition (as adjusted by the Department), 89.49 percent. See id. at 22157 and Preliminary FA/Corroboration Memorandum. Although we applied to Zaporizhstal total adverse facts available for purposes of the preliminary determination, we gave the company yet another opportunity to remedy the deficiencies and inconsistencies in its response after the preliminary determination was issued. Accordingly, on April 19, 2001, and May 4, 2001, we issued supplemental questionnaires with due dates of May 4, 2001, and May 18, 2001, respectively. On May 3, 2001, the Department granted Zaporizhstal's request that the April 19, 2001, questionnaire response deadline of May 4, 2001 be extended until May 18, 2001. Zaporizhstal submitted timely responses to both questionnaires on May 18, 2001. On May 21, 2001, Zaporizhstal filed information that was "inadvertently left out" from the May 18th submission. The Department determined to allow Zaporizhstal's May 21, 2001 submission to remain on the record of this proceeding. See Memorandum to the File from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson, regarding the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Ukraine, dated July 27, 2001. Subsequently, although the deadline for submitting responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaire had passed, Zaporizhstal filed three additional submissions - on June 28, June 29, and July 6, 2001. On July 31, 2001 we issued a letter to Zaporizhstal in which we rejected Zaporizhstal's June 28, June 29, and July 6, 2001, submissions as untimely filed factual information. In this letter, Zaporizhstal was informed that, in order for the Department to have considered this information, it should have been filed along with the May 18, 2001 submission, (as supplemented on May 21st), in response to the Department's final supplemental questionnaires of April 19 and May 4, 2001. See Letter from Edward Yang to Bruce Aitken, dated July 31, 2001. On August 2, 2001 counsels to Zaporizhstal and petitioners were notified via telephone that the Department determined not to conduct a verification of Zaporizhstal's sales and normal value data. See Memorandum to the File from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson; Decision Not to Conduct a Verification of Respondent's Data, dated August 2, 2001. Analysis 1. Application and Selection of Facts Available Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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. The statute requires that certain conditions be met before the Department may resort to facts available. Where the Department determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, section 782(d) of the Act provides that the Department will so inform the party submitting the response and will, to the extent practicable, provide that party the opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency. If the party fails to remedy the deficiency within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent responses, as appropriate. Section 782(e) states that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed "deficient" under section 782(d) if: (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. a. Dnepropetrovsk and Ilyich As we have explained in our Preliminary FA/Corroboration Memorandum, Dnepropetrovsk and Ilyich failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C), we will continue using total facts available with respect to these companies for purposes of our final determination. b. Zaporizhstal As explained in the Preliminary FA/Corroboration Memorandum, and in the background section of this memorandum, the Department provided Zaporizhstal with numerous opportunities to remedy and explain its deficient questionnaire responses, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act. Although on February 9, February 27, March 9, March 19, April 5, April 9, April 11, May 18 and May 21, 2001, Zaporizhstal attempted to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, we continue to find them lacking in fundamental respects and are unable to use them for purposes of our final determination. The following is a detailed description of the deficiencies, inconsistencies, and discrepancies nonetheless contained in Zaporizhstal's responses. Record evidence shows that Zaporizhstal failed to report a significant volume of sales of subject merchandise. The Department requested that Zaporizhstal "provide sample sales contracts for sales of subject merchandise"(emphasis added) to the largest customer(s) to whom its trading companies, Midland Industries Limited ("Midland Industries") and Midland Resources Holding Limited ("Midland Resources"), sold subject merchandise. See Department's May 4, 2001 questionnaire at 1, questions 4 and 5. In response, Midland Industries and Midland Resources each submitted a sample invoice and bill of lading. See Zaporizhstal's May 21, 2001 response. The respective invoices in those submissions describe the merchandise as [ * * * ]. However, our analysis of these documents reveals that the quantities listed on these invoices do not correlate to the information presented in each companies' respective sales datafiles. These invoices identify [ * * * ] metric tons (MT) and [ * * * ] MT of sales of hot-rolled coils to the U.S. from Midland Industries and Midland Resources, respectively. These unreported sales account for more than 11 percent of Zaporizhstal's total reported sales of subject merchandise during the POI - [ * * * ]MT. Given that these sales were not included in Midland Industries' and Midland Resources' section C responses and datafiles, we find the record grossly incomplete and are unable to conduct a meaningful dumping analysis. Moreover, the discovery by the Department of these unidentified U.S. sales raises the question of the possible existence of further unreported U.S. sales of subject merchandise. There are numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in Midland Industries' and Midland Resources' datafiles which make them unusable for the Department's purposes. A) Despite the Department's repeated requests that only one value be reported in each field for each unique sales transaction, (2) both Midland Industries and Midland Resources continue to list multiple values for individual sales transactions. The Department specifically requested that these companies' datafiles include "only one number in each field for each sales observation." The companies were further instructed to "revise those fields" in which they "listed more than one number for field numbers: i.e., 2.3: Grade/Specification, 3.5.: Thickness, and 3.6: Width." See Department's April 19, 2001 questionnaire at 2, question 11. In response, Midland Industries and Midland Resources stated that their datafiles had been "revised ... to conform to the Department's instructions." See Zaporizhstal's May 18, 2001 submission at 6. However, in their respective datafiles, both companies continue to list multiple values in the fields for grade/specification, thickness, width, and yield strength for several individual models (control numbers, hereinafter referred to as CONNUMS). Moreover, in addition to the fact that these problems were not corrected, Midland Industries' most recently-submitted sales listings now includes multiple CONNUMs for individual sales transactions. Additionally, it is not indicated anywhere in the response what portion of the total quantity reported for each sales transaction should apply to each CONNUM reportedly associated with that sales transaction. B) In its March 14, 2001 supplemental questionnaire, the Department specifically instructed Zaporizhstal that "in accordance with Department policy, control numbers (CONNUMS) are defined by their unique combination of product characteristics. Therefore no two CONNUMS should have the identical set of model match characteristics." The Department further directed Zaporizhstal to revise its datafiles to "ensure that every unique CONNUM designation has individual model match characteristics reported." Specifically, the Department explained that "{e}ach individual CONNUM must reflect a unique pattern of reported values for variables 3.1-3.11, and each unique pattern of reported values for variables 3.1-3.11 should be reported as only one single CONNUM. See Department's March 14, 2001 questionnaire at 2 and 7, questions 6.b and 22, respectively. Despite these explicit instructions, Midland Industries and Midland Resources reported identical characteristics for different CONNUMS. For example, Midland Resources reports two different CONNUMs [ * * * ] for sales observations 3 and 4, respectively, which have identical product characteristics. Similarly, Midland Industries' sales observation 2 lists three different CONNUMS [ * * * ], all of which have the same product characteristics. C) Neither Midland Industries nor Midland Resources complied with the Department's explicit requests that the CONNUMS reported in the sales datafiles match those reported in Zaporizhstal's section D response. See id. Specifically, Midland Industries' and Midland Resources' CONNUMS do not correspond to those of Zaporizhstal because Zaporizhstal has reported yield strengths which range from [ * * * ]. The Midland companies, however, have reported code [ * * * ], which is classified in the Department's original questionnaire of January 4, 2001, as [ * * * ]. Given the discrepancies described above, the Department is unable to determine the appropriate normal value to which Midland Industries' and Midland Resources' reported sales should be compared. The Department explored the possibility of linking the Midland datafiles with Zaporizhstal's sales datafile in an attempt to determine whether there is sufficient information on the record to construct a usable U.S. sales datafile. (3) However, we do not have sufficient and usable information on the record that would allow the Department to construct a usable U.S. sales datafile in this manner. In fact, in meetings held on June 28th and July 2nd, Zaporizhstal's representative confirmed that it is not possible to fully link Midland Industries' and Midland Resources' datafiles to Zaporizhstals' datafiles based only on record information submitted prior to May 22, 2001. See Memoranda to the File from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson regarding Ex-Parte Meeting, dated May 3, June 22, and June 28, 2001. Although Midland Industries included in its response a column of its datafile which links Midland Industries' sales observations to Zaporizhstal's sales observations, (4) we find it impossible to link these datafiles accurately using this information, because multiple CONNUMS (as noted above) and Zaporizhstal's sales observations have been listed for unique Midland Industries' sales observations. For example, Midland Industries' sale observation [ * * * ] lists [ * * * ] different unique CONNUMS and [ * * * ] of Zaporizhstal's sales observations. Additionally, some of Zaporizhstal's sales observations are linked to multiple Midland Industries' sales observations, thus making it impossible to directly correlate the two datafiles. In another example, Zaporizhstal's sales observation [ * * * ] is listed for both Midland Industries' sales observations [ * * * ], each of which lists a different combination of Zaporizhstal's sales observations and different unique total quantity sale amounts. Because Zaporizhstal did not provide a breakdown of the respective quantities sold of each CONNUM, the Department is unable to determine their correlation to Zaporizhstals' sales observations. We also explored the possibility of using other information, such as invoice numbers, to establish a link. However, there is no tangible correlation between the invoice numbers listed in the respective files for each company's sales. That is, while Zaporizhstal has reported its commercial invoice numbers for its sales to Midland Industries and Midland Resources, who in turn reported their respective invoice numbers to the U.S. customers, there is no information on the record which would enable the Department to link these sets of invoices to one another. Zaporizhstal's factors of production datafile is significantly flawed and unusable for the following reasons: A) Despite the Department's repeated requests, (5) Zaporizhstal has failed to provide adequate information regarding the calculation methodology used to determine the usage amounts for their factors of production. The Department requested that Zaporizhstal "describe the method used to calculate the usage amounts for raw materials, labor hours, energy inputs, packing materials, and packing labor at each stage of the production process." See Department's April 19, 2001 questionnaire at 4, question 19. In response, Zaporizhstal merely stated that the calculation method used for all factors was to divide the "usage amounts" by the "total actual consumption fixed in the Computer Data Base by output." See Zaporizhstal's May 18, 2001 submission at 13, question 19. The Department further requested that Zaporizhstal "provide sample calculations for each factor used to produce the subject merchandise demonstrating how the factor value was obtained." See id. Zaporizhstal failed to provide adequate sample calculation worksheets to clearly demonstrate how each value was obtained for each respective factor. Instead, Zaporizhstal merely gave a sample calculation for only one raw material and referenced previously submitted "monthly worksheets." See Zaporizhstal's May 18, 2001 questionnaire response at 13. We find Zaporizhstal's response inadequate because the sample calculation was for one raw material only. No additional information was provided for any other raw materials, labor hours, energy inputs, packing materials, or packing labor, despite the Department's explicit request. See id. Further, the Department has no way of knowing whether the usage amounts were accurately calculated as an average for the POI, because the sample calculation was for one month only. Without an adequate description of the specific calculation methodology used for each factor, it is impossible for the Department to determine whether the methodology applied for the reported usage amounts is appropriate for the Department's margin calculation. B) In addition to the deficiencies identified above in point A, Zaporizhstal's submission does not comport with the Department's requirements regarding the reporting of model-specific usage factors. Zaporizhstal originally maintained that, because of its reliance on the GOST system, it was impossible to establish correspondence between unique product characteristics and factors of production data, as required by the Department. See Zaporizhstal's April 5, 2001 submission at 7. However, for purposes of its May 18, 2001 submission, it "artificially" constructed a coefficient system to differentiate between certain characteristics for its CONNUMs. As instructed in the original questionnaire sent to Zaporizhstal, the Department requires that the per-unit factor usage amounts be calculated based on the actual inputs used by the company during the POI as recorded under the normal accounting system. See Department's January 4, 2001, questionnaire at section (D)(I)(B). The coefficient system developed by Zaporizhstal, however, is based upon estimated, instead of actual, values, and cost instead of usage amounts. Furthermore, by Zaporizhstal's own admission, the coefficient system is unverifiable. See Zaporizhstal's May 18, 2001 submission at 9. The following is a summary of some of the specific flaws in the coefficient system developed by Zaporizhstal, which remains incompatible with the Department's requirements outlined above: •Zaporizhstal states that it has estimated an average difference of [ * * * ] between the products in coils and those in sheets. Although Zaporizhstal states that this is an "expert estimate," it has not provided any further information to support the validity of this estimate. Rather, Zaporizhstal has stated that the "relative data are not accounted and cannot be verified." •To value the differences in each CONNUM's carbon content, Zaporizhstal explains that it has applied one of three possible different coefficient values to each CONNUM, depending upon the length of its melting cycle. It further states that "the medium coefficient value [ * * * ]" was "expertly chosen for the most representative steel grade." See id. Again, Zaporizhstal did not provide any further information to support its estimates, instead stating that relative data are not accounted for and therefore "cannot be verified." •Zaporizhstal estimated the differences in the degrees of deoxidization for each CONNUM by calculating an average difference in consumption of such deoxidization agents as aluminum, ferro-manganese, and silico- manganese. The higher of two coefficient values were applied to those products with relatively more deoxidization. Again, Zaporizhstal states that "relative data are not accounted and cannot be verified." •Differences in thickness were calculated by applying the average differences in total costs for rolling hot-rolled products of different thicknesses. Although Zaporizhstal explains that the minium and maximum coefficient values have been applied to those subject products with the maximum and minimum thickness, respectively, there is no further explanation of the methodology used to calculate the coefficient values. Rather, Zaporizhstal simply states that "relative data are not accounted and cannot be verified." See Zaporizhstal's May 18, 2001 submission at 8- 10. In sum, Zaporizhstal's data is unusable for purposes of calculating an accurate dumping margin. The company failed to report a significant volume of its sales of subject merchandise, therefore rendering the record incomplete. Its U.S. sales datafile is riddled with discrepancies and inconsistencies which preclude the accurate comparison of individual sales observations to the normal value. Zaporizhstal's factors of production datafile is unusable because Zaporizhstal failed to provide adequate information regarding the calculation methodology used to determine its usage amounts. Additionally, the system that it developed to differentiate between certain characteristics for its CONNUMs is based upon values that are unverifiable and, therefore, unusable. As described in the Preliminary FA/Corroboration Memorandum, and in the Background section, above, the Department provided Zaporizhstal with numerous opportunities to remedy the significant deficiencies contained in the company's responses, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act. Despite the Department's clear instructions and repeated attempts to obtain the necessary information, Zaporizhstal failed to provide adequate responses. By denying the Department the above-outlined crucial information regarding factors of production and U.S. sales information, we are unable to calculate a meaningful dumping margin based on record information. First, given that record evidence indicates that there is a significant volume of unreported U.S. sales, a margin analysis would be meaningless as the calculation would not be based on Zaporizhstal's complete selling experience during the period of investigation. Second, the U.S. sales files submitted by Zaporizhstal's affiliated trading companies contain serious deficiencies which render them unusable for margin calculation purposes. Third, the normal value cannot be calculated based on Zaporizhstal's data because the reported usage information does not comport with the Department's requirements, and, as even Zaporizhstal has noted, the calculations of certain of its usage factors "cannot be verified." See Zaporizhstal's May 18, 2001 submission at 9. In sum, the information provided by Zaporizhstal is so incomplete and inconsistent that it cannot be verified pursuant to section 782(e)(2) of the Act. Moreover, the overall information provided by the company cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination. See section 782(e)(3) of the Act. Accordingly, because Zaporizhstal has failed to provide within the deadlines specified by the Department, a full accounting of its factors of production and sales of subject merchandise, we must use facts available, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. 2. Use of Adverse Inferences Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an inference adverse to the interests of a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. See also Statement of Administrative Action ("SAA") accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994). a. Dnepropetrovsk and Ilyich As noted above, Dnepropetrovsk and Ilyich failed to respond to our requests for information, which demonstrates lack of cooperation on the part of these companies within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, consistent with our Preliminary Determination, we will continue using adverse inferences with respect to these companies when applying facts available for purposes of this final determination. b. Zaporizhstal Zaporizhstal failed to provide adequate responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires, despite the Department's clear instructions and repeated attempts to obtain the necessary information, pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act. The Department issued a total of six supplemental questionnaires to Zaporizhstal. See Department's February 23, March 14, March 20, March 27, April 19, and May 4, 2001 questionnaires. Extensions were granted for three of the supplemental response deadlines - one for one additional week, one for three additional days, and another for two additional weeks. See Memorandum to the File from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson, Extended Deadlines for Submission of Response the Department's March 27, 2001 Supplemental Questionnaire dated April 6, 2001, Memorandum to the File from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson Corrected Deadlines for Submission of Section C-D Supplemental Responses, dated March 30, 2001, and Memorandum from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson regarding The Department's April 19, 2001 Supplemental Questionnaire, dated May 3, 2001. The Department also met with Zaporizhstal's counsel on several occasions to discuss the deficiencies in the company's submissions. For example, on March 13, 2001, the Department met with Zaporizhstal's counsel to discuss how these deficiencies could be corrected. See Memorandum to the File from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson regarding Ex-parte Meeting, dated March 19, 2001. In another meeting with Zaporizhstal's counsel, on May 3, 2001, the Department clarified the questions contained in the Department's April 19, 2001, supplemental questionnaire, to ensure that the counsel fully understood the form and the manner in which the necessary information needed to be reported. See Memorandum from Lori Ellison to Rick Johnson regarding the Department's April 19, 2001 Supplemental Questionnaire, dated May 3, 2001. Finally, on June 28, 2001, and July 2, 2001, Department officials met for the last time with Zaporizhstal's counsel to provide additional opportunity to discuss Zaporizhstal's information submitted on the record prior to May 18, 2001 (as supplemented on May 21st), the final deadline for filing responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. As detailed above, despite the opportunities provided to Zaporizhstal to remedy its data, Zaporizhstal's answers to the Department's questions were unresponsive and grossly deficient to the extent that the Department was unable to meaningfully analyze the data submitted. Consequently, we find that these failures and omissions demonstrate that Zaporizhstal failed to cooperate to the best of its ability within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. For the reasons explained above, we continue to find, for purposes of this final determination, that Dnepropetrovsk, Ilyich, and Zaporizhstal have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, the Department finds that, in selecting from among the facts available for the purposes of the final determination, an adverse inference is warranted. Ukraine-Wide Rate As stated in the Preliminary Determination, evidence on the record indicates that the total quantity of U.S. imports of subject merchandise is greater than the total quantity of Zaporizhstal's hot-rolled steel shipments to the United States. (Attachment 1). Therefore, there is a reasonable indication that other producers/exporters of subject merchandise made shipments during the POI to the United States. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in a NME country a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent from government control so as to be entitled to a separate rate. In the case involving Ukraine, the single responding company, Zaporizhstal, has claimed to be sufficiently independent to warrant a separate rate. However, given that Zaporizhstal failed to cooperate in this investigation to the best of its ability, we did not make a determination as to whether Zaporizhstal merits a separate rate, and are assigning a single country- wide rate for all exporters of subject merchandise from Ukraine. Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition. Consistent with the Department's practice in cases where a respondent is considered uncooperative, (6) as adverse facts available, we have applied the highest margin from the petition, as adjusted by the Department, which is 90.33 percent. See Initiation Checklist. 3. Corroboration of Information Used as Facts Available Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition rates) as facts available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that "corroborate" means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See id. As explained in our Preliminary Determination, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the extent appropriate information was available for this purpose. In order to determine the probative value of the petition margin for use as adverse facts available in this determination, we have re-examined evidence supporting the petition calculation (as adjusted by the Department). In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the U.S. price and normal value calculations on which the Department- adjusted petition margin was based and compared the sources used in the initiation to information from independent sources reasonably at our disposal. We have since reviewed updated information from independent sources and have determined that the values for the following items are more appropriate than those used in our margin calculation in the preliminary determination: natural gas, inflation factor, exchange rate. We have adjusted our calculation accordingly. (See Attachment II). We continue to find that the 90.33 percent margin, the highest rate from the petition (as adjusted by the Department), is relevant with respect to Zaporizhstal. Recommendation For the reasons set forth above, we recommend applying a single antidumping duty deposit rate (the Ukraine-wide rate), based on total adverse facts available, to all producers/exporters of hot-rolled steel in Ukraine, as authorized under section 776 of the Act. We recommend using the highest price to normal value margin calculated in the petition, as adjusted by the Department (see above), 90.33%. To the extent practicable, we have corroborated the data used in developing this margin. Agree Disagree Let's Discuss Edward C. Yang Director, Office IX AD/CVD Enforcement Group III _________________________________________________________________ Attachment ATTACHMENT 1 Total Imports Quantity 127,461.843 MT Total imports for the period of investigation were determined by totaling monthly imports of subject merchandise for the period April-September 2000, as reported on the ITC's Trade Data Web Page, which is based on IM- 145s. Potential Respondent Zaporizhstal was the only company that responded to the Department's questionnaire. In its Section C response, Zaporizhstal reported [ * * * ] MT of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise during the POI. Thus, Zaporizhstal's import share during the POI was [ * * * ]percent. 1. As explained in detail in our Preliminary FA/Corroboration Memorandum, we have applied total adverse facts available with respect to Dnepropetrovsk and Ilyich because these companies failed to respond to our requests for information. As non-responding mandatory respondents, these companies are not entitled to a separate rate; rather, they are considered part of the single Ukrainian entity, and are subject to the Ukraine-wide rate. See Memorandum to Edward C. Yang, Facts Available Corroboration Memorandum, Preliminary Determination of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Ukraine, April 23, 2001 ("Preliminary FA/Corroboration Memorandum") at 22155. With respect to Zaporizhstal, although it responded to the Department's request for information, its responses were so deficient that they could not serve as a reliable basis for reaching our determination. We thus applied to Zaporizhstal total adverse facts available for purposes of our preliminary determination. See id. at 22155 - 22156. 2. See Department's March 14 questionnaire at 8, question 26 and Department's April 19, 2001 questionnaire, at 2, question 11. 3. Zaporizhstal reported its sales to Midland Industries and Midland Resources in its May 18, 2001 section C response. Because Zaporizhstal's datafile does not contain the same defect of including multiple values in certain data fields, we sought to determine whether usable information from Zaporizhstal's datafile could be linked to Midland Industries' and Midland Resources' defective sales listings. 4. See Zaporizhstals' May 18, 2001 response at 6 and column 0.1 OBS of Midland Industries sales datafile. 5. See Department's March 14, 2001 questionnaire at 13, question 47.b. and Department's April 19, 2001 questionnaire at 4, question 19. 6. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Germany, 63 FR 10847 (March 5, 1998).