[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 127 (Monday, July 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34514-34516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16305]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-601]


Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from Farberware, Inc. (the 
petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea. This notice of 
the preliminary results covers three consecutive review periods for 
January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991, January 1, 1992 through 
December 31, 1992, and January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. The 
1991 and 1992 reviews cover two manufacturers/exporters, Namil Metal 
Company (Namil) and Daelim Trading Company, Ltd. (Daelim). The 1993 
review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Daelim. The reviews indicate 
the existence of dumping margins during these periods.
    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 administrative review, we will instruct 
the U.S. Customs Service (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: July 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy S. Wei or Zev Primor, 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

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea on January 20, 
1987 (52 FR 2139). The Department published notices of ``Opportunity To 
Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for 
the 1991 review period (56 FR 66846, December 26, 1991), for the 1992 
review period (58 FR 4148, January 13, 1993), and for the 1993 review 
period (59 FR 564, January 5, 1994). On January 31, 1991, the 
petitioner requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel cooking 
ware from the Republic of Korea for two manufacturers/exporters, 
covering the period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. We 
initiated the 1991 review on February 24, 1992 (57 FR 6314). On January 
27, 1993, the petitioner requested that the Department conduct an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea for two 
manufacturers/exporters, covering the period January 1, 1992 through 
December 31, 1992. We initiated the 1992 review on March 8, 1993 (58 FR 
12931). On January 31, 1994, the petitioner requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on certain stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of 
Korea for one manufacturer/exporter, covering the period January 1, 
1993 through December 31, 1993. We initiated the 1993 review on 
February 17, 1994 (59 FR 7979).
    The Department is now conducting reviews for these periods in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Review

    The products covered by these administrative reviews are certain 
stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea. During the 
review periods, 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 number is provided for convenience and 
Customs' purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to 
the scope of the product coverage.
    The review periods (POR) are January 1, 1991 through December 31, 
1991, January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, and January 1, 1993 
through December 31, 1993, respectively. The 1991 and 1992 reviews 
cover two companies, Namil and Daelim. The 1993 review covers one 
company, Daelim.
Use of Best Information Available

Namil

    For the 1991 review, in filing its questionnaire response, Namil 
failed to submit computer tapes of all sales data in a timely manner. 
Because this data was provided after the due date, the Department 
rejected this additional submission in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.31(b)(2). Therefore, in the case of Namil, we have calculated a 
dumping margin using the best information available (BIA), in 
accordance with section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.37(b).
    In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology. The Department assigns lower margins to those 
respondents who cooperate in a review (tier two), and margins based on 
more adverse assumptions for those respondents who do not cooperate in 
the review, or who significantly impede the proceeding (tier one)(see 
Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed.Cir., 
June 22, 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 1188, cert. denied, 1995 U.S. Lexis 100 
(1995) (Allied-Signal)).
    When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for 
information, but fails to provide the information requested in a timely 
manner or in the form requested, we assign the company second-tier BIA, 
which is the higher of (1) the firm's 

[[Page 34515]]
highest rate (including the ``all others'' rate) for the same class or 
kind of merchandise from the same country from a prior administrative 
review or, if the firm has never before been investigated or reviewed, 
the ``all others'' rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for 
any firm for the class or kind of merchandise from the same country of 
origin (see Allied-Signal, 28 F.3d at 1189, 1190 n.2).
    Because Namil submitted the narrative portion of the questionnaire 
response in a timely manner, we are using cooperative BIA as the basis 
for Namil's margin for the 1991 review. For Namil, we have used, as 
BIA, 11.22 percent, which is the highest rate calculated in this 
review.
    For the 1992 review, Namil failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. When a company refuses to cooperate with the Department, 
or otherwise significantly impedes the Department's proceedings, it 
assigns that company first-tier BIA, which is 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 LTFV investigation or 
a prior administrative review; or (2) the highest calculated rate found 
in the present administrative review for any firm for the same class or 
kind of merchandise from the same country of origin (Id.).
    We, therefore, are using uncooperative BIA as the basis for Namil's 
margin in the 1992 review. For Namil, we have used, as BIA, 31.23 
percent, which is the highest rate calculated for any firm in the first 
review (see Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic of 
Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 
9560, February 22, 1993).

Daelim

    Daelim responded to the Department's questionnaires. However, at 
verification for the 1991 review, we discovered some U.S. sales, with 
either sale dates or U.S. entry dates during the POR, which Daelim had 
failed to report in its original and supplemental questionnaire 
responses. The submission of U.S. sales is a critical element in our 
calculation of the dumping margin. Failure to provide all of the U.S. 
sales is a serious omission, which can cause our dumping margin to be 
distorted. This failure of Daelim to fully respond to the Department's 
questionnaire in a timely manner has led the Department to apply 
partial BIA to its U.S. sales in accordance with section 776(c). In 
applying partial BIA to Daelim's U.S. sales, we used to these 
unreported U.S. sales the highest rate found for any firm for the same 
class or kind or merchandise in the same country of origin in the LTFV 
investigation or a prior administrative review. We have applied as BIA 
for these unreported sales a rate of 31.23 percent, which was the 
highest rate calculated for any firm in the first review (Id.).

United States Price

    In calculating USP for Daelim for each review, the Department used 
purchase price, as defined in section 772 of the Act, because the 
merchandise was sold to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to importation 
and exporter's sales price was not otherwise indicated. Purchase price 
was based on the packed, FOB price to unrelated purchasers in the 
United States. For each review, we made deductions from the unit price, 
where applicable, for terminal handling charges, brokerage charges, 
inland freight, wharfage, container freight station (CFS) charges, 
export license recommendation fees, outer (shipment) packaging, and 
miscellaneous, bank-related expenses. We made an addition to Daelim's 
USP for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
    In the 1991 review, Daelim claimed that it incurred warranty 
expenses to one U.S. customer on sales which occurred prior to the POR. 
At verification, we discovered that Daelim's warranty expenses were 
actually a recision of a price increase to the U.S. customer. Daelim's 
invoices reported the lower price that the U.S. customer had actually 
paid for the merchandise. However, in its response to the Department's 
questionnaire, Daelim reported the price to the customer including the 
price increase. Consequently, we used the actual lower price charged by 
Daelim to that customer, rather than the prices for U.S. sales reported 
by Daelim on its computer tape. Because some selling expenses were 
based on sales value, we made additional adjustments to Daelim's 
reported U.S. brokerage expense and export license recommendation fee 
for sales to the one U.S. customer. We did not make a warranty expense 
adjustment to the USP of the other U.S. customers. Daelim did not incur 
any warranty expenses during the 1992 and 1993 PORs.
    For those U.S. sales which Daelim failed to report prior to 
verification for the 1991 review with either sale dates or entry dates 
during the POR, we applied a BIA rate of 31.23 percent.
    No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    For the purposes of the preliminary reviews, we determined that, 
due to the nature of the merchandise under review, none of the cooking 
ware sold in the United States could reasonably be compared to cooking 
ware sold in the home market. This is due to the fact that the majority 
of the cooking ware sold in the United States consisted of semi-
finished products for further manufacturing in the United States, 
whereas the cooking ware sold in the home market consisted of finished 
products. Under the Department's standard practice, we only compare 
U.S. products with products that have a difference in variable cost of 
manufacture (difmer) of less than 20 percent. Because products sold in 
the home market did not pass the Department's difmer test, we did not 
use the home market sales as a basis for FMV. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(2) of the Act, we calculated FMV based on constructed 
value of the models sold in the United States for the 1991, 1992, and 
1993 reviews (see Large Power Transformers from Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 45767, DOC Position to 
Comment 1, October 5, 1992, and High Information Content Flat Panel 
Displays and Display Glass Therefore from Japan; Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR 
32376, 32388, DOC Position to Hosiden Comment 1, July 16, 1991).
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, the constructed value 
of the models sold in the United States included materials, 
fabrication, general expenses, profit, and packing. As a result of our 
verification findings for the 1991 review, we recalculated Daelim's 
1991 reported costs for direct labor, variable overhead, interest 
expense, profit, direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses, 
imputed credit, and general and administrative expenses for the purpose 
of deriving constructed value. We multiplied each by a factor based on 
our findings during the verification of Daelim's reported cost data.
    As a result, we recalculated total cost of manufacturing, total 
cost of production, and total constructed value based on the changes to 
Daelim's reported costs for the 1991 review. Revised total cost of 
manufacturing equalled the sum of revised direct labor, revised 
variable overhead, fixed overhead, and direct material costs. 

[[Page 34516]]
Revised total cost of production equalled the sum of revised total cost 
of manufacturing, revised direct selling expense, revised indirect 
selling expense, revised imputed credit expense, revised general and 
administrative expense, and revised interest expense. Revised total 
constructed value equalled the sum of revised total cost of production 
and revised profit.
    As a result of our verification findings for the 1992 and 1993 
reviews, we recalculated Daelim's reported costs for the respective 
period for general and administrative expenses, interest, and profit 
for the purpose of deriving constructed value, in accordance with 
section 773(e) of the Act. As a result, we recalculated total cost of 
production and total constructed value based on the changes to Daelim's 
reported costs for the 1992 and 1993 reviews. Revised total cost of 
production equalled the sum of total cost of manufacturing and total 
general expenses, which included revised general and administrative 
expenses, revised interest expenses, and selling expenses. Revised 
total constructed value equalled the sum of revised total cost of 
production and revised profit. In the 1993 review, in accordance with 
19 CFR 353.56 (b)(1), we offset commissions paid in the U.S. market 
with indirect selling expenses from the home market since no 
commissions were paid in the home market.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Act, we used the 
statutory minima of 8 percent for profit and 10 percent for general 
expenses for each review since reported profits and general expenses 
were less than the statutory minima for each review.

Preliminary Results

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the dumping 
margins to be:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
         Manufacturer/Exporter               Time Period      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Namil Metal Company, Ltd...............     1/1/91-12/31/91        11.22
Daelim Trading Company, Ltd............     1/1/91-12/31/91        11.22
Namil Metal Company, Ltd...............     1/1/92-12/31/92        31.23
Daelim Trading Company, Ltd............     1/1/92-12/31/92         3.43
Daelim Trading Company, Ltd............     1/1/93-12/31/93         0.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
publication of this notice and any interested party may request a 
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in 
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the 
date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final 
results of these administrative reviews, which will include the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs or comments.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated above. The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews 
for all shipments of certain stainless steel cooking ware from the 
Republic of Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 
on or after the publication date of the final results of these 
administrative reviews, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) the cash deposit rates for Namil will be that margin established in 
the final results of these reviews; (2) if Daelim's latest period of 
review rate remains de minimis for the final results, Customs will 
require a cash deposit of zero percent; (3) for merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in these reviews but covered in 
the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit 
will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final 
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter 
received a company-specific rate; (4) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in these reviews, or the original investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these reviews, 
or the LTFV investigation; and (5) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous reviews, the 
cash deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the ``all others'' rate 
established in the LTFV investigation (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 Act. Since antidumping 
duties cannot be assessed on the portion of the margin attributable to 
export subsidies, there is no reason to require a cash deposit or a 
bond for that amount. Accordingly, before completion of the final 
results of these administrative reviews, the level of export subsidies 
as determined in Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic 
of Korea; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 51 FR 
42867 (November 26, 1986), which is 0.71 percent ad valorem, will be 
subtracted from the dumping margin for cash deposit purposes. There 
have been no reviews conducted since the publication of the 
countervailing duty order.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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.
    These administrative reviews 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.


    Dated: June 26, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-16305 Filed 6-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P