Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan |
|---|
|
Joseph A. Spetrini
Department of Commerce
February 17, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3574]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 17, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-810]
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan
AGENCY: Import Administration/International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review and partial termination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by a petitioner, the Department of
Commerce has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The review covers four
firms and the period April 18, 1991, through August 31, 1992. The
review indicates the existence of margins for the firms.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine to assess
antidumping duties equal to the difference between United States price
and foreign market value.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4195 or 482-3814, respectively.
Background
On September 20, 1991, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from
Taiwan (56 FR 47737). The Department published a notice of
``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' on September 11, 1992
(57 FR 41725). On September 21, 1992, the petitioner, Consolidated
International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated), requested that we
conduct an administrative review for the period April 18, 1991, through
August 31, 1992. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 22, 1992 (57
FR 48202), announcing an administrative review of King Kong
Corporation, San Shin Hardware Works Co., Ltd. (San Shin), Gourmet
Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation (Gourmet), Chu Fong Metallic Industrial
Corporation (Chu Fong), and San Chien Electric Industrial Works, Ltd.
(San Chien).
On January 8, 1993, the petitioner withdrew its request for review
of San Shin. Therefore, we are terminating the review. We were unable
to identify an address for King Kong Corporation. We sent
questionnaires to Gourmet, Chu Fong, and San Chien. We received a
response from Gourmet and conducted a verification at Gourmet's office
September 22, 1993, through September 26, 1993.
On May 26, 1993, the petitioner alleged middleman dumping of the
subject merchandise. Based on information compiled during the review
process, the Department determined to apply best information available
(BIA) to Gourmet and the two non-respondents. Therefore, the Department
did not initiate a middleman dumping investigation (see Use of BIA,
Middleman dumping allegation, and Transhipment allegation memos to
Holly Kuga, Director, Office of Antidumping Compliance).
On June 11, 1993, the petitioner alleged that the respondent was
shipping the subject merchandise through Canada to the United States.
We examined data provided by the U.S. Customs Service which showed no
evidence that the Canadian buyer resold the subject merchandise to the
United States during the period of review (POR) (see Use of BIA,
Middleman dumping allegation, and Transhipment allegation memo to Holly
Kuga, Director, Office of Antidumping Compliance).
The Department has now conducted the administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Tariff Act).
Scope of the Review
The merchandise covered by this review is one-piece and two-piece
chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are more than
\11/16\ inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal
(hex) size of at least \3/4\ inches (19.05 millimeters). The term
``unfinished'' refers to unplated and/or unassembled chrome-plated lug
nuts. The subject merchandise is used for securing wheels to cars,
vans, trucks, utility vehicles, and trailers. Zinc-plated lug nuts,
finished or unfinished, and stainless-steel capped lug nuts are not in
the scope of this review. Chrome-plated lock nuts are also not in the
scope of this review.
During the POR, chrome-plated lug nuts were provided for under
subheading 7318.16.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS).
Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is
dispositive.
Best Information Available
Based on information gathered while on verification, the Department
determined that the data submitted by Gourmet for this review are
unverifiable because the response Gourmet submitted was based on an
``in-house'' accounting system that could not be reconciled to an
audited financial statement.
Reliance on the accounting system used for the preparation of the
audited financial statements is a key and vital part of the
Department's determination that a company's constructed value data are
credible. An ``in-house'' system which has not been audited and is not
used for the preparation of the financial statements or for any purpose
other than internal deliberations of the company does not assure the
Department that such costs have been stated in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, or that all costs have been
appropriately captured by the ``in-house'' system (see Final
Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and
Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37186 (July
9, 1993)). Since Gourmet's ``in-house'' system cannot be relied upon
due to numerous deficiencies (see Use of BIA, and Middleman dumping
allegation memo to Holly Kuga, Director, Office of Antidumping
Compliance), the Department has determined to apply BIA to Gourmet's
sales in the POR, pursuant to Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act.
Chu Fong and San Chien both failed to respond to the Department's
questionnaire. Accordingly, we are applying BIA to their entries.
In deciding what to use as BIA, the Department's regulations
provide that the Department may take into account whether a party
refuses to provide requested information (19 CFR 353.37(b)). Thus, the
Department may determine, on a case-by-case basis, what constitutes
BIA. For the purposes of these preliminary results, we applied the
following two tiers of BIA where we were unable to use a company's
response for purposes of determining a dumping margin (see Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Antifriction
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58 FR 39739, July 26,
1993):
1. When a company refuses to cooperate with the Department or
otherwise significantly impedes these proceedings, we used as BIA
the higher of (1) the highest of the rates found for any firm for
the same class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin
in the less than fair value investigation (LTFV) or prior
administrative reviews: or (2) the highest rate found in this review
for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the same
country of origin.
2. When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for
information and, substantially cooperates in verification, but fails
to provide the information requested in a timely manner or in the
form required or was unable to substantiate it, we used as BIA the
higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to the firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation
or a prior administrative review or if the firm has never before
been investigated or reviewed, the all others rate from the LTFV
investigation; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for
the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country
of origin.
Therefore, for parties refusing to respond, Chu Fong and San Chien,
the first-tier BIA rate we applied in these preliminary results is
10.67 percent, which is the highest rate the Department found in the
original LTFV investigation, Gourmet provided us with responses to our
questionnaires, however the information on the record was unverifiable.
Accordingly, we applied the second-tier BIA rate of 6.47 percent. This
rate represents the highest rate ever applicable to Gourmet.
King Kong Corporation received the ``all other'' rate because the
Department attempted, but could not locate, an address for it.
Preliminary Results of Review
We have preliminarily determined that the following margins exist
for the period April 18, 1991, through August 31, 1992:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation....................... 6.47
Chu Fong Metallic Industrial Works Co, Ltd................... 10.67
San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd.............................. 10.67
King Kong Corporation........................................ 6.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion
of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions
concerning all respondents directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
Furthrmore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed
firms will be those firms' established in the final results of this
administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original LTFV
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the ``all others'' rate will remain at 6.93
percent as established in the LTFV investigation.
On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade, in Floral Trade
Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul Corporation
and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83, decided
that once an ``all other'' rate is established for a company,it can
only be changed through an administrative review. The Department has
determined that in order to implement these decisions, it is
appropriate to apply the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by
antidumping duty orders for the purposes of establishing cash deposit
in all current and future administrative reviews. The ``all others''
rate in the LTFV investigation was 6.93 percent.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the
date of publication of this notice, and a hearing within 10 days of the
date of publication. Any hearing requested will be held as early as
convenient for parties but not later than 44 days after date of
publication, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs, or other
written comments, from interested parties may be submitted not later
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. The Department will publish the final results of review,
including its results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written comments.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: February 3, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-3574 Filed 2-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M