[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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