[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14421-14424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6682]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-811]
Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the petitioner, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Korea. The review
covers 25 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the
United States. The review period is September 30, 1992, through
February 28, 1994 (the POR).
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of the administrative review, we will
instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the
difference between the United States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Davina
Friedmann, Matthew Rosenbaum, or Michael Rill, Office of Antidumping
Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 26, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 16398) the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from the
Republic of Korea. On March 4, 1994, the Department published a notice
of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' (59 FR 10368) of
this antidumping duty order for the period September 30, 1992, through
February 28, 1994. On March 14, 1994, the petitioner, the Committee of
Domestic Steel Wire Rope & Specialty Cable Manufacturers, requested an
administrative review for 25 manufacturers/exporters of steel wire rope
from Korea.
We published a notice of initiation of the review on May 12, 1994
(59 FR 24683). The Department is now conducting this review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Unlocated Companies
We were unable to obtain addresses for Atlantic & Pacific, Dong-Il
Metal, Dong Yong, Kwang Shin Industrial, and Seo Hae Industrial. In
accordance with our practice with respect to companies to which we
cannot send a questionnaire, we are assigning to these companies the
``All Others'' rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation,
which is 1.51 percent. See Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-
Made Fiber From Hong Kong; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 59 FR 13926 (March 24, 1994).
Scope of Review
The product covered by this review is steel wire rope. Steel wire
rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel,
other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or made up into
articles, and not made up of brass-plated wire. Imports of these
products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and
7312.10.9090.
Excluded from this review is stainless steel wire rope, i.e.,
ropes, cables and cordage other than stranded wire, of stainless steel,
not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, which is
classifiable under HTS subheading 7312.10.6000. Although HTS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our own
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.
[[Page 14422]]
United States Price
In calculating USP, the Department used purchase price as defined
in section 772 of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to
unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to importation and the exporter's sales
price (ESP) methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.
Purchase price was based on ex-factory, f.o.b. Korea, f.o.b.
customer's specific delivery point, c.i.f., c&f, or delivered prices to
unrelated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. We
adjusted these prices for billing adjustments. We made adjustments,
where applicable, for domestic brokerage and handling, ocean freight,
marine insurance, terminal handling charges, stevedoring charges,
wharfage expenses, bill of lading issuing fees, export license fees,
export insurance, domestic inland freight, containerization expenses
and container taxes, container freight station charges, and shoring
charges in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. For certain
companies we also deducted bank charges, postage fees, letter of credit
advice charges, and delay charges when they were not reported
separately from movement expenses. We also added duty drawback, where
applicable, for Manho Rope and Wire, Ltd. (Manho), and Chun Kee Steel &
Wire Rope Co., Ltd. (Chun Kee), pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(B) of the
Act. We did not make any duty drawback adjustments for Chung Woo Rope
Co., Ltd., Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc., Kumho Rope, Sung Jin Company, Ssang
Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd., and Yeonsin Metal, because they were unable
to demonstrate a connection between imports for which they paid duties
and exports of steel wire rope.
We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as
outlined in Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994).
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value
In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of steel
wire rope in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating
FMV, we compared the volume of home market sales of steel wire rope to
the volume of third-country sales of steel wire rope, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.48(a). Based on this
comparison we determined that the home market was viable.
Because the Department disregarded certain of Manho's home market
sales that were determined to have been made below the cost of
production (COP) during the original investigation, the Department
initiated a COP investigation of Manho for purposes of this
administrative review, in accordance with section 773(b) of the Act and
Department practice. See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from Thailand; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 11195, 11196
(March 15, 1991). Furthermore, based on allegations by petitioner, we
also determined that reasonable grounds existed to believe or suspect
that Chun Kee and Boo Kook made sales below cost. Thus, we initiated
COP investigations with respect to Chun Kee and Boo Kook. However, we
are using best information available (BIA) for Boo Kook and are not
calculating a specific rate for that company (see ``Best Information
Available'' section below).
We calculated the COP for the merchandise using Manho's and Chun
Kee's cost of manufacturing (COM) and general expenses, in accordance
with section 353.51(c) of the Department's regulations (19 CFR
353.51(c)(1994)). Respondents' COM consisted of materials, labor, and
factory overhead costs incurred in steel wire rope production. General
expenses consisted of general and administrative expenses as well as
net interest expenses normally included in general expenses for COP.
We performed a model-specific COP test, in which we examined
whether each home market sale was priced below the merchandise's COP.
The Department defines the COP as the sum of direct material, direct
labor, variable and fixed factory overhead, general expenses, and
packing. See Stainless Steel Hollow Products From Sweden; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 40521 (August
9, 1994). For each model, we compared this sum to the reported home
market unit price, net of price adjustments and movement expenses. In
accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we also examined whether the
home market sales of each model were made at prices below their COP in
substantial quantities over an extended period of time. None of these
companies submitted evidence that such sales were made at prices which
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time
in the normal course of trade.
For each model where less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home
market sales during the POR were made at prices below the COP, we
included all sales of that model in the computation of FMV. For each
model where 10 percent or more, but not more than 90 percent, of the
home market sales during the POR were priced below the merchandise's
COP, we excluded from the calculation of FMV those home market sales
which were priced below the merchandise's COP, provided that these
below-cost sales were made over an extended period of time. For each
model where more than 90 percent of the home market sales during the
POR were priced below the COP and over an extended period of time, we
disregarded all sales of the model from our calculation of FMV and used
the constructed value (CV) of those models as described below. See
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Part
Thereof From France, et al.; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews,
and Notice of Intent To Revoke Orders (in Part) 59 FR 9463 (February
28, 1994).
In order to determine whether below-cost sales had been made over
an extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which
each product was sold below cost to the number of months during the POR
in which each model was sold. If a product was sold in fewer than three
months during the review period, we did not exclude the below-cost
sales unless there were below-cost sales in each month of sale. If a
product was sold in three or more months, we did not exclude the below-
cost sales unless there were below-cost sales in at least three months
during the POR. We found certain of Manho's and Chun Kee's home market
sales to be below the COP and excluded these sales.
For those models that had sufficient above-cost sales, we
calculated FMV based on delivered prices and ex-factory prices to
unrelated customers. In calculating FMV, we made adjustments, where
appropriate, for rebates. Manho reported domestic pre-sale freight for
certain sales. We consider pre-sale freight to be an indirect expense
where respondent does not demonstrate that it is a direct expense.
Therefore, since all of Manho's U.S. sales are purchase price sales,
and 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) (the commission offset provision) does not
apply, we have not adjusted FMV for pre-sale freight. We adjusted for
Korean value-added tax in accordance with our decision in
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994). We deducted home
market packing costs from the home market price and added U.S.
[[Page 14423]] packing costs to the FMV. We also made adjustments,
where applicable, for differences in the physical characteristics of
merchandise.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments
to FMV. We deducted home market credit expenses, inspection fees,
domestic post-sale inland freight, warranty and servicing expenses and
where appropriate, added U.S postage fees, U.S. letter of credit fees,
U.S. bank charges, U.S. credit expenses, U.S. inspection fees, U.S.
warranty and servicing expenses, and U.S. product liability insurance
except where they were not reported separately from movement expenses.
We used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were no
contemporaneous sales of the comparison home market model or
insufficient sales at or above the COP. We calculated CV, in accordance
with section 773(e) of the Act, as the sum of the COM of the product
sold in the United States, home market selling, general and
administrative (SG&A) expenses, home market profit and U.S. packing.
The COM of the product sold in the United States is the sum of direct
material, direct labor, and variable and fixed factory overhead
expenses. For home market SG&A expenses, we used the larger of the
actual SG&A expenses reported by the respondents or 10 percent of the
COM, the statutory minimum for general expenses. For home market
profit, we used the larger of the actual profit reported by the
respondents or the statutory minimum of eight percent of the sum of COM
and general expenses. We deducted home market direct selling expenses
and added U.S direct selling expenses to CV.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Best Information Available
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have preliminarily
determined that the use of BIA is appropriate for certain firms.
In determining what to use as BIA, the Department employs a two-
tiered methodology. The Department uses one method to determine the BIA
margin for those respondents who cooperate in a review, while it uses a
different method to determine the BIA margin for those respondents who
do not cooperate, or who significantly impede the review.
In the case of uncooperative respondents, we use 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 LTFV investigation or prior
administrative reviews; or (2) the highest calculated rate in the
current review for any firm (see Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Revocation in Part of an Antidumping Duty
Order, Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof From France, et al., 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993)). When a
company substantially cooperates with our requests for information, but
fails to provide all information requested in a timely manner or in the
form requested, we use as BIA the higher of (1) the highest rate
(including the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from the same country from either the
LTFV investigation or a prior administrative review; or (2) the highest
calculated rate in the current review for any firm for the class or
kind of merchandise from the same country.
Boo Kook submitted timely responses to our original and
supplemental sales questionnaires. However, Boo Kook failed to respond
to the COP questionnaire. Furthermore, several days before the
scheduled verification, Boo Kook requested that we postpone our
verification for 60 to 90 days. In its request for this delay, Boo Kook
claimed that it had learned that several employees who have been
indicted for embezzlement had destroyed many of the company's financial
records, and that the remaining records were in police custody. Boo
Kook requested the delay in verification in order to enable it to
reconstruct its records for verification. Because postponement of the
verification posed a substantial burden to the Department, we could not
grant the requested delay, and thus we could not verify Boo Kook's
response. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we
have determined that the use of BIA is appropriate for Boo Kook.
Because Boo Kook submitted timely responses to the Department's
original and supplemental sales questionnaires, we determine Boo Kook
to be a cooperative respondent. Accordingly, a margin of 2.72 percent,
which is the highest calculated rate for this review, has been applied
to Boo Kook.
We sent Dae Kyung and Myung Jin a questionnaire and received a
confirmation of receipt through the United States Postal Service and
the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, respectively. We did not receive a response
from these two companies. Therefore we have considered these companies
to be uncooperative respondents. Accordingly, a margin of 2.72 percent
has been applied to Dae Kyung and Myung Jin, which is the highest
calculated rate for this review.
We sent Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Dong-Il), a questionnaire. It
requested that it be excused from the review process because it no
longer manufactures steel wire rope. We sent the company a letter
explaining that it is responsible for responding to the questionnaire
for any sales or shipments that occurred during the POR. However, the
company did not respond to the questionnaire. Therefore, we have
considered Dong-Il to be an uncooperative respondent. Accordingly, a
margin of 2.72 percent has been applied to Dong-Il, which is the
highest calculated rate for this review.
We sent Kwangshin Rope a questionnaire and three weeks after the
due date received a response indicating that it was bankrupt. We
rejected the response because it was untimely and had not been properly
submitted or served. However, we sent Kwangshin Rope a supplemental
questionnaire requesting clarification of its bankruptcy status. We did
not receive a response. Therefore, we have considered Kwangshin Rope to
be an uncooperative respondent. Accordingly, a margin of 2.72 percent
has been applied to Kwangshin Rope, which is the highest calculated
rate for this review.
We sent Seo Jin a questionnaire and received confirmation of
receipt from the U.S. Embassy. One month after the deadline for the
questionnaire response, we received a letter requesting an extension
from Seo Jin. We denied this request because the request was untimely,
was not served as required by our regulations, and was not filed in our
Central Records Unit as required by our regulations. Therefore, we have
considered Seo Jin to be an uncooperative respondent. Accordingly, a
margin of 2.72 percent has been applied to Seo Jin, which is the
highest calculated rate for this review.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period September 30, 1992, through
February 28, 1994:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic & Pacific.......................................... 1.51
Boo Kook Corporation........................................ 2.72
Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd......................... 2.72
Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd..................................... 0.16
Dae Heung Industrial Co..................................... (\1\)
Dae Kyung Metal............................................. 2.72
Dong-Il Metal............................................... 1.51
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd........................ 2.72
Dong Young.................................................. 1.51
[[Page 14424]]
Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc....................................... 0.45
Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc...................................... (\1\)
Korea Sangsa Co............................................. (\1\)
Korope Co................................................... (\1\)
Kumho Rope.................................................. 0.07
Kwang Shin Ind.............................................. 1.51
Kwangshin Rope.............................................. 2.72
Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd...................................... 0.03
Myung Jin Co................................................ 2.72
Seo Hae Ind................................................. 1.51
Seo Jin Rope................................................ 2.72
Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd.............................. 0.09
Sung Jin.................................................... 0.04
Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc........................ (\1\)
TSK (Korea) Co., Ltd........................................ (\1\)
Yeonsin Metal............................................... 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments or sales subject to this review.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. Upon completion of the review the Department will issue
appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the 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 by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be those rates established in the final results of the
review (except that if the rate for a firm is de minimis, i.e., less
than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that firm); (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 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 or the original
investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 1.51 percent, the ``All
Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (58 FR 11029).
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days
of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held as
early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days after
the date of publication or the first work day 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 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 this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written comments.
This notice also 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22(c)(5).
Dated: March 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-6682 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P