[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13721]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 7, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-834, A-549-810]

 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Disposable Pocket 
Lighters From the People's Republic of China and Thailand

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vincent Kane (202) 482-2815 for the People's Republic of China (PRC); 
or David Boyland (202) 482-0588 for Thailand, Office of Countervailing 
Investigations, Important Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230.

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS: 

The Petition

    On May 9, 1994, we received a petition in proper form filed by the 
BIC Corporation (``petitioner''), the sole U.S. Producer of disposable 
pocket lighters. Petitioner filed supplements to the petition on May 23 
and 24, 1994.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.12, petitioner alleges that imports 
of disposable pocket lighters from the PRC and Thailand are being, or 
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value 
within the meaning of section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), and that such imports are materially injuring, or 
threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
    Petitioner states that it has standing to file the petition because 
the BIC Corporation is an interested party, as defined under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act, and it is the sole domestic producer of 
disposable pocket lighters. If any interested party, as described under 
paragraphs (C), (D), (E), or (F) of section 771(9) of the Act, wishes 
to register support for, or opposition to, this petition, it should 
file a written notification with the assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration.

Scope of Investigations

    The Products covered by these investigations are disposable pocket 
lighters, whether or not liquefied hydrocarbon, or a mixture containing 
any of these, whose vapor pressure at 75 degrees fahrenheit (24 degrees 
celsius) exceeds a gage pressure of 15 pounds per square inch. Non-
refillable pocket lighters are imported under subheading 9613.10.0000 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). 
Refillable, disposable pocket lighters would be imported under 
subheading 9613.20.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and Customs purposes, our written descriptions of the 
scope of these proceedings are dispositive.

United States Price and Foreign Market Value--The People's Republic of 
China

    Petitioner based United States Price (``USP'') on a 1994 sale made 
on a packed, c.i.f., duty-paid, delivered basis to a U.S. purchaser of 
disposable pocket lighters from the PRC. Petitioner deducted ocean 
freight, marine insurance, commission, harbor maintenance fee, and 
customs processing fee from this price to arrive at an f.o.b. value for 
the imports.
    Petitioner contends that the foreign market value (``FMV'') of 
disposable pocket lighters subject to this investigation must be 
determined in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which concerns 
non-market economy (``MNE'') countries. The Department has determined 
the PRC to be an NME, within the meaning of section 771(18)(A) of the 
Act, in previous cases (see e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Sebacic Acid from the PRC, May 31, 1994 (59 FR 
28053)). In accordance with 771(18)(C) of the Act, that determination 
continues to apply for purposes of this initiation.
    In the course of this investigation, parties will have the 
opportunity to address this NME determination and provide relevant 
information and argument on this issue. In addition, parties will have 
the opportunity in this investigation to submit comments on whether FMV 
should be based on prices or costs in the PRC consistent with section 
773(c)(1)(B) of the Act (see Amendment to Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order: 
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's Republic of China, 57 FR 15052 
(April 24, 1992)).
    In this case, petitioner provided two alternative approaches for 
determining FMV. In the first approach, in accordance with section 
773(c) of the Act, petitioner attempted to base FMV on the NME 
producers' factors of production valued in a market economy country at 
a comparable level of economic development. Petitioner, however, was 
unable to obtain information on the factors of production in the PRC. 
Therefore, petitioner used its own factors of production.
    In valuing the factors or production, petitioner used India and 
Pakistan as surrogate countries. For purposes of this invitation, we 
have accepted India and Pakistan as surrogates because their economies 
are at a level of development comparable to the PRC's. (See Memorandum 
to David L. Binder, Director-Division II, Office of Antidumping 
Investigations from David P. Mueller, Director, Office of Policy, dated 
August 1993, regarding non-market economy status and surrogate country 
selection, on file in Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.) Also, 
there is evidence on the record that India is a producer of comparable 
merchandise, as required by section 773(c)(4) of the Act. When cost 
information was not available in either of these countries, petitioner 
valued the factor using its own costs.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, petitioner's 
FMV consisted of the sum of values assigned to materials, labor, 
energy, and overhead. Petitioner adjusted certain factor values for 
inflation. Pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act, petitioner added 
to the labor and material costs, and general expenses, the statutory 
minimum of eight percent for profit.
    In making its allegation of sales at less than fair value based on 
the factors of production methodology, petitioner relied extensively on 
U.S. costs for valuing the factors. Although the Department has 
accepted similar allegations in past antidumping investigations against 
the PRC, we prefer that the NME producers' factors be used and that 
they be valued in a comparable market economy, which is a significant 
producer of the merchandise. In response to our concern in this regard, 
petitioner provided a secondary basis for determining FMV, using prices 
from a market economy country.
    Section 773(c)(2) of the Act provides that FMV may be based on the 
price at which comparable merchandise produced in a market economy 
country is sold in other countries, including the United States. In 
accordance with section 773(c)(2) of the Act, petitioner provided 
information on the price at which disposable pocket lighters from the 
Philippines are being sold for export to the United States. For 
purposes of this initiation, we have accepted the Philippines as a 
surrogate country, because its economy is at a level of development 
comparable to the PRC's. (See memoradnum to David L. Binder, Director-
Division II, Office of Antidumping Investigations from David P. 
Mueller, Director, Office of Policy, dated December 4, 1991, regarding 
non market economy status and surrogate country selection, on file in 
Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.) There is also evidence on 
the record that the Philippines is a producer of comparable 
merchandise, as required by section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Because the 
Philippine import price was on an f.o.b. basis, petitioner made no 
adjustments to this price.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that disposable pocket lighters from the PRC are being, or are 
likely to be, sold at less than fair value. The comparison of USP and 
FMV in the petition indicates a margin of 332.43 percent when FMV is 
based on factor values and a margin of 197.85 percent when FMV is based 
on Philippine export prices. It it becomes necessary at a later date to 
consider the petition as a source of best information available (BIA), 
we may review these calculation bases.

Thailand

    Petitioner was unable to obtain actual sales price information on 
which to base USP. Petitioner, therefore, based USP on the customs 
value of imports from Thailand, as reported in the Department of 
Commerce IM-146 import statistics. No adjustments were made to these 
prices, because they were reported on an f.o.b. basis.
    Petitioner also was unable to obtain actual prices for sales in 
Thailand or for export to third countries. Accordingly, petitioner 
based FMV on its own costs, adjusted for known differences between the 
costs of petitioner and Thai producers.

Fair Value Comparison

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that disposable pocket lighters from Thailand are being, or are 
likely to be, sold at less than fair value. Furthermore, the comparison 
of USP and FMV in the petition indicates a margin of 172.78 percent. If 
it becomes necessary at a later date to consider the petition as a 
source of BIA, we may review these calculation bases.

Initiation of Investigations

    We have examined the petition on disposable pocket lighters and 
have found that it meets the requirements of section 732(b) of the Act. 
Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to 
determine whether imports of disposable pocket lighters from the PRC 
and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States 
at less than fair value.

ITC Notification

    Section 732(d) of the Act requires us to notify the ITC of these 
actions, and we have done so.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by June 23, 1994, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of disposable pocket lighters from 
the PRC and Thailand are causing material injury, or threaten to cause 
material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will 
result in the investigations being terminated; otherwise, these 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 353.13(b).

    Dated: May 31, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-13721 Filed 6-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M