[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5184]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 8, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-601]
Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 27, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel cooking
ware from the Republic of Korea. The review covers one manufacturer/
exporter of this merchandise to the United States and the period
January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. We gave interested parties
an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We received
comments from the petitioner. Based on our analysis of these comments,
we have changed the final results from those presented in the
preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Debra Crumbie or Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482-5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 27, 1993, the Department published in the Federal
Register (58 FR 50347) the preliminary results of the administrative
review of certain stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of
Korea (52 FR 2139, January 20, 1987). The Department has now completed
the review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Tariff Act).
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this administrative review are certain
stainless steel cooking ware from the republic of Korea. During the
review period, such merchandise was classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 7323.93.00. The products covered by
this order are skillets, frying pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double
boilers, stock pots, dutch ovens, casseroles, steamers, and other
stainless steel vessels, all for cooking on stove top burners, except
tea kettles and fish poachers. Excluded from the scope is stainless
steel kitchen ware. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience
and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to
the scope of the product coverage. The review covers Namil Metal
Company, Ltd. (Namil), and the period January 1, 1990 through December
31, 1990 (POR).
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results of review. We received comments from the
petitioner, Farberware, Inc. (Farberware).
Comment 1: Farberware states that, in the computer program for the
preliminary results, the Department incorrectly adjusted for
differences in the physical characteristics of similar third-country
and U.S. products by subtracting total cost of manufacturing for third-
country merchandise, expressed in the computer program as ``TDCOM,''
from the cost of manufacturing for U.S. products, expressed in the
computer program as ``USCOM,'' to determine the difference in
merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment. Farberware maintains that TDCOM and
USCOM include both variable and non-variable manufacturing costs for
third-country and U.S. merchandise, respectively.
Farberware argues that the Department should, in accordance with
its established practice, revise the preliminary results computer
program to compare third-country variable cost of manufacturing,
expressed in the computer program as ``TDVARCOM,'' to U.S. variable
cost of manufacturing, expressed in the computer program as
``USVARCOM''.
Department's Position: We agree with Farberware. As is consistent
with our practice, we based our adjustment for the DIFMER on the
differences in variable cost of manufacture (COM) between similar
third-country and U.S. products.
Comment 2: Farberware argues that the DIFMER adjustment was very
substantial for many third-country comparison models. Farberware
asserts that even after the Department changes the computer
instructions to calculate the DIFMER using variable COM rather than
total COM, many of the DIFMER adjustments may be in excess of 20
percent of the total COM of the U.S. merchandise being compared.
In addition to limiting the DIFMER adjustment to differences in the
variable cost of manufacture, Farberware urges the Department to adhere
to its general practice and to use constructed value (CV) as the basis
for determining foreign market value (FMV) for those comparisons in
which the DIFMER adjustment exceeds 20 percent of the total COM of the
U.S. merchandise being compared.
Department's Position: We agree with Farberware. Where the
difference in variable COM between a third-country model and a U.S.
model exceed 20 percent of the total COM of the U.S. merchandise, in
our final results, we used CV as the basis for FMV.
Comment 3: Farberware maintains that the Department's choice of the
best information available (BIA) in the preliminary results of review
is inappropriate. (The Department used the highest rate from a previous
review as BIA to calculate margins for sales for which Namil provided
no model-match or CV data. As BIA, the Department used the dumping
margin of 1.69 percent as was established in the administrative review
of Namil's sales which covered the period January 1, 1989 through
December 31, 1989.)
Farberware maintains that the Department asked Namil in a
supplemental questionnaire regarding sales during the period of review
to provide similar third-country matches for all sales to the United
States, and to provide CV data for United States sales for which there
were no similar matches. Because Namil failed to provide a revised
computer tape product concordance file and failed to provide the
requested CV data, Farberware suggests that the Department use as BIA
the highest margin the Department calculates for any U.S. sale for
Namil in the final margin calculation of this administrative review.
Thus, Farberware argues that the Department should apply the
highest margin calculated for any U.S. sale by Namil to the total net
value of all sales to the United States of those U.S. transactions for
which there was no model match or CV information.
Department's Position: We agree with Farberware that BIA should be
applied to those sales for which no model match or CV information has
been provided by Namil. However, we maintain that the Department's
choice of BIA in the preliminary results of administrative review was
appropriate.
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we use BIA in
cases where a party refuses or is unable to produce information
requested in a timely manner and in the form required. In cases where a
firm is deemed cooperative, but fails to supply certain FMV information
(e.g., corresponding home market sales within the contemporaneous
period or constructed value data for a few U.S. sales), we apply a BIA
rate to the particular U.S. transactions involved. In such situations,
we use 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 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 (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof from France, et al, Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 58 FR 39729, 39739 July 26, 1993).
Namil responded to our questionnaire. Namil, however, failed to
provide either (1) such or similar third-country matches or (2)
constructed value information for some of its U.S. sales during the
period of review. Since Namil attempted to cooperate, we applied a rate
of 1.69 percent, the highest rate ever applicable to Namil for the
subject merchandise (See Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the
Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 56 FR 38114, August 12, 1991), to U.S. sales for which Namil
failed to give either model-match or CV information.
Comment 4: Farberware disagrees with the Department's preliminary
decision to exclude from its analysis those U.S. sales for which Namil
submitted a gross price of zero. Farberware further states that Namil
never explained why these sales had a gross price of zero.
Farberware maintains that the zero gross price has never been shown
to represent anything other than the actual price charged for these
U.S. sales. Thus, Farberware argues that the Department should include
all reported U.S. sales with a gross price of zero in the calculation
of Namil's dumping margin in the final results of review.
Department's Position: We agree with Farberware and have included
these sales in our calculations.
Comment 5: Farberware argues that the Department treated U.S.
direct selling expenses, expressed as ``DIRECTP'' in the computer
program, incorrectly by deducting DIRECTP from FMV instead of adding it
to FMV.
Farberware states that the Department's standard practice in
purchase price comparisons is to add U.S. direct selling expenses to
FMV.
Department's Position: We agree with Farberware. The revised
computer program instructions have corrected this clerical error. In
these final results, we added U.S. circumstance-of-sale adjustments to
FMV, as is our standard practice in purchase price comparisons.
Comment 6: Farberware maintains that the Department failed to
deduct the direct selling expenses of ``letter of credit advice.''
expressed as ``LCADV''in the computer program, and ``marine insurance
expense,'' expressed as ``MARINST'' in the computer program, from the
net prices used in the sales below cost test. Farberware states that
such a deduction should be made because the selling, general, and
administrative expenses reported by Namil and included in our sales
below cost test were net of all direct selling expenses.
Department's Position: We agree with Farberware. In our final
results, we have deducted letter of credit and marine insurance
expenses from the net prices used in the sales below cost test.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we have determined that a dumping margin
exists for the period as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Namil Metal Co., Ltd................... 1/1/90-12/31/90 1.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall instruct the Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between the United States price and FMV may vary from the percentage
stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions
directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or with drawn from
warehouse, for consumption, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the
Tariff Act:
(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate
determined above;
(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, a prior
review, or the original less than fair value (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) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered
in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash
deposit rates will be the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation, as discussed below.
On May 25, 1993, the United States Court of International Trade
(CIT), 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 a company is assigned an ``all
others'' rate, that rate can only be changed through an administrative
review. The Department has determined that in order to implement these
decisions, it is appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from
the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for the correction of
clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed
by antidumping duty orders for purposes of establishing cash deposits
in all current and future administrative reviews.
Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty order,
the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 8.10
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the final notice of the
LTFV investigation by the Department (52 FR 2139, January 20, 1987).
Article VI, paragraph 5 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade provides that ``[n]o product * * * shall be subject to both
antidumping and countervailing duties to compensate for the same
situation of dumping and export subsidization.'' This provision is
implemented by section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act. Since
antidumping duties cannot be assessed on the portion of the margin
attributable to export subsidies, we will instruct the Customs Service
to subtract the level of export subsidies as determined in Certain
Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic of Korea; Countervailing
Duty Order, 52 FR 2140 (January 20, 1987), which is 0.78 percent ad
volorem, from the dumping margin for assessment and cash deposit
purposes. There have been no reviews conducted since the publication of
the countervailing duty order.
This notice also serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice is 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 28, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-5184 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P-M