[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44837-44839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21432]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-810]


Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; 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 by a petitioner, 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 21 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to 
the United States for the period September 1, 1993, through August 31, 
1994. The review indicates the existence of margins for the firms.
    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 
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference 
between United States price (USP) and the FMV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department 

[[Page 44838]]
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone (202) 482-4195 or 482-3814, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping 
duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). The 
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' on September 2, 1994 (59 FR 45664). The 
petitioner, Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated), 
requested that we conduct an administrative review for the period 
September 1, 1993, through August 31, 1994. We published a notice of 
``Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review'' on October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51939), and sent questionnaires to 
the following firms: Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd. (Anmax), Buxton 
International Corporation (Buxton), Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co., 
Everspring Plastic Corp. (Everspring), Gingen Metal Corp. (Gingen), 
Goldwinate Associates, Inc. (Goldwinate), Gourmet Equipment Corporation 
(Gourmet), Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Hwen), Kwan How Enterprises 
Co., Ltd. (Kwan How), Kwan Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd. (Kwan Ta), Kuang 
Hong Industries, Ltd. (Kuang), Multigrand Industries Inc. (Multigrand), 
San Chien Electric Industrial Works, Ltd. (San Chien), San Shing 
Hardware Works Co., Ltd. (San Shing), Transcend International Co. 
(Transcend), Trade Union International Inc./Top Line (Top Line), 
Uniauto, Inc. (Uniauto) and Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company, 
Inc. (Wing). Only Gourmet and Buxton responded to the questionnaire.
    A review was also initiated on Chu Fong Metallic Industrial 
Corporation. However, an address could not be determined for Chu Fong 
Metallic Industrial Corporation. Questionnaires that were sent to Wing, 
Hwen, Kwan How, Kwan Ta, and Kuang Hong were returned as undeliverable. 
These firms will receive the ``all others'' rate established in the 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.
    The Department has now conducted the administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of one-piece and two-
piece chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, 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) but not more than one 
inch (25.4 mm), plus or minus \1/16\ of an inch (1.59 mm). 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 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading 
7318.16.00.10. 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)

    The Department sent questionnaires to, but received no responses 
from the following firms: Anmax, Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co., 
Everspring, Gingen, Goldwinate, Multigrand, San Chien, San Shing, 
Transcend, Top Line, and Uniauto. 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.
    The Department also sent questionnaires to Gourmet and Buxton who 
provided us with responses to our questionnaires. However, the 
Department was unable to reconcile the data Gourmet and Buxton 
submitted in their responses to our questionnaire with their audited 
financial statements (see verification reports for Buxton and Gourmet, 
July 21, 1995). 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. Internal documents which have not 
been audited and are not used for the preparation of the financial 
statements or for any purpose other than internal deliberations of the 
company does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in 
the documents (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 and thus 
unverifiable, we have determined to apply BIA to Gourmet and Buxton. 
Because these firms cooperated with our request for information, 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.
    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 original 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.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period September 1, 1993, through 
August 31, 1994:

                                                                        

[[Page 44839]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent 
                    Manufacturer/exporter                        margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation.......................       6.47
Buxton International.........................................       6.93
Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co................................      10.67
Transcend International......................................      10.67
Kuang Hong Industrial Works..................................      10.67
San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd..............................      10.67
Everspring Corporation.......................................      10.67
Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd....................................      10.67
Everspring Plastic Corp......................................      10.67
Gingen Metal Corp............................................      10.67
Goldwinate Associates, Inc...................................      10.67
Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd...............................       6.93
Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd................................       6.93
Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd.................................       6.93
Kuang Hong Industries Ltd....................................       6.93
Multigrand Industries Inc....................................      10.67
San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd............................      10.67
Trade Union International Inc./Top Line......................      10.67
Uniauto, Inc.................................................      10.67
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company...................       6.93
Chu Fong Metallic Industrial 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 on 
each manufacturer/exporter 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 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) if neither the 
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous 
review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 6.93 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    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 the 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 notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to parties 
subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their 
responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    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: August 4, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-21432 Filed 8-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M