[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31138]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 19, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-810]

 

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Partial Termination.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by a petitioner and a respondent, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from 
Taiwan. The review covers seven firms and the period September 1, 1992, 
through August 31, 1993. 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: December 19, 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 published the antidumping 
duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The Department 
published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
on September 7, 1993 (58 FR 47116). The petitioner, Consolidated 
International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated), and a respondent, 
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation (Gourmet), requested that we 
conduct an administrative review for the period September 1, 1992, 
through August 31, 1993. We published a notice of ``Initiation of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 
18, 1993 (58 FR 53710), for the following firms: Buxton International, 
Gourmet, Chu Fong Metallic Industrial Corporation (Chu Fong), San Chien 
Electric Industrial Works, Ltd. (San Chien), Everspring Plastic Corp. 
(Everspring), Kuang Hong Industries Co., Ltd. (Kuang), and Transcend 
International Co. (Transcend). Questionnaires were sent to Buxton, 
Everspring, Kuang, Transcend, Gourmet, Chu Fong, and San Chien. 
Everspring responded that it has never sold the subject merchandise. 
Only Gourmet and Buxton responded to the questionnaire.
    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 period of review (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were 
provided for under subheading 7318.16.00.10 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.

Use of Best Information Available (BIA)

    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 determines, on a case-by-case basis, what constitutes BIA. 
For the purposes of these preliminary results, we applied the following 
two-tier BIA analysis 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.

    Chu Fong, Kuang, Transcend, and San Chien failed to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire. Accordingly, for these companies we applied 
the first-tier BIA rate of 10.67 percent, which is the highest rate the 
Department found in the original LTFV investigation.
    Gourmet and Buxton provided us with responses to our 
questionnaires. However, the Department determined that the data 
Gourmet submitted could not be reconciled to its audited financial 
statements. 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 sales and 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 sales and 
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)). Because their submissions were unreconcilable to their 
audited financial statements, we have determined to apply BIA to 
Gourmet and Buxton, (see Use of BIA memo to Holly Kuga, Director, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance). Accordingly, we applied the second-
tier BIA rate of 6.47 percent to Gourmet and 6.93 percent to Buxton. 
These rates represent the highest rates ever applicable to each firm.
    Everspring responded that it never sold the subject merchandise, 
and we have no information to contradict this claim. If Everspring 
begins to sell the subject merchandise, it entries will receive the 
``all other rate'' cash deposit rate until we conduct an administrative 
review upon request.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We have preliminarily determined that the following margins exist 
for the period September 1, 1992, through August 31, 1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation.......................      6.47 
Buxton International.........................................      6.93 
Chu Fong Metallic Industrial Work Co., Ltd...................     10.67 
Transcend International......................................     10.67 
Kuang Hong Industrial Works..................................     10.67 
San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd..............................     10.67 
Everspring 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 these respondents directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, 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' rates 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, a previous 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: December 7, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-31138 Filed 12-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M