[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48687-48690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23334]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-808]


Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: On April 20, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its 1991-
1992 and 1992-1993 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order 
on chrome-plated lug nuts (lug nuts) from the People's Republic of 
China (PRC) (60 FR 19720). These reviews cover shipments of this 
merchandise to the United States during the periods April 18, 1991, 
through August 31, 1992, and September 1, 1992, through August 31, 
1993. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received 
we have changed the results from those presented in the preliminary 
results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little, Elisabeth Urfer, or 
Maureen Flannery, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 
20230; telephone (202) 482-4733.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping 
duty order on lug nuts from the PRC on April 24, 1992 (57 FR 15052). On 
September 11, 1992, and September 7, 1993, the Department published in 
the Federal Register (57 FR 41725 and 58 FR 47116), respectively, 
notices of opportunity to request administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty order on lug nuts from the PRC covering the periods 
April 18, 1991, through August 31, 1992, (91-92 review) and September 
1, 1992, through August 31, 1993 (92-93 review).
    For the 91-92 review, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1994), 
the petitioner, Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. 
(Consolidated), requested that we conduct an administrative review of 
China National Automotive Industry I/E Corp.; China National Machinery 
& Equipment Import and Export Corporation, Jiangsu Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu); 
Rudong Grease Gun Factory (Rudong); China National Automotive Industry 
Shanghai Automobile Import & Export Corp. (Shanghai Automobile); Chu 
Fong Metallic Industrial Corporation (Chu Fong); and San Chien Electric 
Industrial Works, Ltd. (San Chien). We published a notice of initiation 
of this antidumping duty administrative review on October 22, 1992 (57 
FR 48201).
    For the 92-93 review, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), 
Consolidated requested that we conduct an administrative review of 
China National Automotive Industry I/E Corp; Jiangsu; China National 
Automobile Import and Export Corp., Yangzhou Branch (Yangzhou); Rudong; 
Ningbo Knives & Scissors Factory (Ningbo); Shanghai Automobile; and 
Tianjin Automotive Import and Export Co. (Tianjin). In accordance with 
19 CFR 353.22(a), Krossdale Accessories, Inc. requested a review of its 
supplier, China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp., 
Nantong Branch (Nantong). We published a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review on October 18, 1993 (58 FR 
53710).
    On April 20, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of its 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty order on lug nuts from the PRC (60 FR 
19720). There was no request for a hearing. The Department has now 
conducted these reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of Review

    On April 19, 1994, the Department issued its ``Final Scope 
Clarifications on Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from Taiwan and the PRC.'' The 
scope, as clarified, is described in the subsequent paragraph. All lug 
nuts covered by these reviews conform to the April 19, 1994, scope 
clarification.
    Imports covered by these reviews are one-piece and two-piece 
chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished. The subject merchandise 
includes chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are more 
than 11/16 inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a 
hexagonal (hx) size of at least 3/4 inches (19.05 millimeters) but not 
over one inch (25.4 millimeters), plus or minus 1/16 of an inch (1.59 
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 included in the scope of this review. Chrome-
plated lock nuts are also not subject to this review.
    Chrome-plated lug nuts are currently classified under subheading 
7318.16.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS 
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
    These reviews cover the periods April 18, 1991, through August 31, 
1992, and September 1, 1992, through August 31, 1993. The 91-92 review 
covers six producers/exporters of Chinese lug nuts. The 92-93 review 
covers eight producers/exporters of Chinese lug nuts.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received a case brief from petitioner, and a 
rebuttal brief from respondents, Rudong and Nantong.
    Comment 1: Petitioner concurs with the Department's decision to use 
best 

[[Page 48688]]
information available (BIA) with respect to Rudong and the non-
responding firms. Petitioner asserts that for the 91-92 review, the 
response by Rudong was incomplete with regard to factor information on 
packing costs, that the Department treated Rudong as a non-shipper, and 
that the Department applied BIA due to Rudong's incomplete response to 
the Department's questionnaire.
    Petitioner states that for the 92-93 review, of the seven firms 
that were potential respondents, the Department again determined that 
one firm, Rudong, had responded to the Department's requests for 
information, but had reported no direct exports to the United States. 
Petitioner contends that, as in 91-92 review, Rudong provided deficient 
factor information, and that the Department correctly used BIA to apply 
the PRC rate of 45.41 percent. Petitioner argues that the remaining six 
companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaires and 
received either a PRC or company-specific rate based on the highest 
rate ever calculated in either the investigation of sales at less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) or the previous review, 45.41 percent. Petitioner 
notes that Jiangsu, which had previously been investigated, received a 
company-specific rate. Petitioner states that the named exporter in the 
92-93 review, Nantong, responded to the questionnaire and received a 
separate rate; however, the company-specific rate and the PRC rate are 
identical.
    Rudong and Nantong disagree with petitioner's positions that it is 
appropriate to use BIA with respect to Rudong and Nantong, and they 
disagree that the Department correctly applied the factors of 
production methodology in these reviews. They argue that Rudong was 
fully responsive to the Department's requests for information, and, 
contrary to petitioner's claims, provided full factors of production 
information. They maintain that the reported factors data, and not BIA 
or other factors data used for the preliminary results, should be used 
by the Department for the final results of these proceedings.
    Rudong and Nantong disagree with the Department and the 
petitioner's claims that Rudong did not provide proper information on 
packing costs. They state that Rudong provided packing data in its 
August 3, 1994 submission. Rudong and Nantong maintain that the 
Department erred in its assessment that Rudong did not provide factor 
information for transporting steel wire rod. They further maintain the 
Department should use the surrogate information contained in the Indian 
publication Steel Scenario which they submitted, rather than Indian 
import statistics, to value steel.
    Department's Position: We disagree with both petitioner and 
respondent, in part. During the 91-92 review Rudong did not export lug 
nuts to the United States; therefore, we treated Rudong as a non-
shipper and applied the PRC rate of 42.42 percent, the highest rate for 
any firm in the LTFV investigation. We did not apply BIA to Rudong. For 
the remaining five companies, none of which responded to our requests 
for information, we applied a BIA rate of 42.42 percent. In deciding 
what to use as BIA, 19 CFR 353.37(b) provides that the Department may 
take into account whether a party refused to provide requested 
information. Thus, the Department determines on a case-by-case basis 
what is BIA. When a company refuses to provide the information 
requested in the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes the 
Department's review, the Department will normally assign to that 
company the higher of (1) The highest rate for any firm in the 
investigation or prior administrative reviews of sales of subject 
merchandise from that same country; or (2) the highest rate found in 
the review for any firm. When a company has cooperated with the 
Department's request for information but fails to provide the 
information requested in a timely manner or in the form required, the 
Department will normally assign to that company the higher of either: 
(1) The highest margin calculated for that company in any previous 
review or the original investigation; or (2) the highest calculated 
margin for any respondent that supplied an adequate response for the 
current review. (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).) Therefore, 
we applied as BIA to the firms which did not respond to our 
questionnaire a PRC rate based on BIA which was the highest rate for 
any firm in the investigation, or the 91-92 review.
    During the 92-93 review, we calculated a rate for Nantong, the only 
exporter that submitted a questionnaire response. Since Rudong produced 
the merchandise sold by Nantong, we compared Nantong's United States 
price with Rudong's foreign market value (FMV). We calculated FMV based 
on Rudong's factors of production. Rudong generally complied with our 
requests for information; however, Rudong did not report the amount of 
the steel input purchased from each supplier and packing weights. While 
Rudong did provide the information we requested with regard to types of 
materials used in packing, Rudong did not provide kilogram weights of 
packing materials, which we needed to value the input materials. The 
questionnaire specifically asks respondents to prove actual material 
usage, and requests specifically that respondents provide the method of 
allocating packing costs for each unit of the subject merchandise. (See 
Letter, with Attachment, from Bernard Carreau to Lu Dong Grease Gun 
Factory, dated March 4, 1994). Because Rudong did not provide this 
information, as BIA, we applied a rate of one percent of the cost of 
production to determine packing costs. This percentage was used in the 
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Tapered Roller 
Bearings from Italy (52 FR 24198, June 29, 1987). This methodology is 
consistent with the Department's valuation of packing in the Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller 
Bearings from the People's Republic of China (56 FR 67590, December 31, 
1991). We also applied partial BIA in calculating transportation costs 
between the factory and its steel suppliers, because, while Rudong 
provided distances from its suppliers, it did not provide the 
percentage purchased from each. Without such information we could not 
allocate purchases to specific suppliers. In our supplemental 
questionnaire we specifically asked Rudong to supply the quantity 
supplied for each input in those instances where there was more than 
one supplier of the input. (See Letter from Bernard Carreau to Jiangsu 
Rudong Grease Gun Factory, dated July 12, 1994.) As BIA, we used the 
longest distance between the factory and any of its suppliers of steel.
    We disagree with Rudong and Nantong with regard to which source we 
should use to value steel. Rudong stated in its supplemental 
questionnaire response that it uses international standard steel #1010, 
which is a low carbon steel with a carbon content of .08 to .13 
percent. The Indian import statistics are more specific in that they 
indicate the carbon content of the steel. The HTS category we used, 
7213.39, ``other bars & rods by weight less than .25 percent carbon,'' 
covers the low carbon steel used by Rudong to produce lug nuts. By 
contrast, Steel Scenario does not specify either the carbon content of 
the steel or other chemicals present in the steel. In addition, Steel 

[[Page 48689]]
Scenario prices include taxes and levies, without indicating the amount 
of taxes and levies included. Therefore, since the Indian import 
statistics are more specific to the type of steel used in the 
production of lug nuts, we have continued to use them for these final 
results.
    Because it did not export during the 92-93 period of review we 
treated Rudong as a nonshipper. We applied BIA to the companies that 
did not respond to our requests for information. Because the rate 
calculated for Nantong was the highest rate in this or any other 
review, or from the investigation of sales at LTFV, the calculated rate 
for Nantong and the PRC rate are identical. Petitioner correctly notes 
that we determined that Nantong received a separate rate. However, we 
disagree that it is appropriate to continue assigning a separate rate 
to Jiangsu. The test to determine whether to treat an entity as 
separate from the state was established in the Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of 
China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) and was amplified in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, May 2, 1994). Under this 
policy, exporters in non-market economies are entitled to separate, 
company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of 
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. 
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence 
of government control includes: (1) An absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control 
of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence of government 
control with respect to exports is based on four factors: (1) Whether 
each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. 
While Jiangsu did receive a separate rate under our old test, because 
Jiangsu did not respond to our request for information in this review, 
we were unable to determine whether it is appropriate to assign Jiangsu 
a separate rate under the current test.
    Comment 2: Petitioner contends that the finding that Nantong is 
entitled to a separate rate does not equate to finding that the Chinese 
industry is market-oriented. Petitioner argues that Nantong is but one 
member of an industry that has been unresponsive to the Department's 
requests for information.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner that a finding that 
an entity is entitled to a separate rate does not equate to a finding 
that the industry is market oriented; however, in neither the 91-92 
review nor the 92-93 review did any party make a claim that the Chinese 
lug nut industry is a market-oriented industry.
    Comment 3: Rudong and Nantong contend that there is a mathematical 
error in the calculation of the surrogate value for steel based on the 
Indian import statistics.
    Department's Position: We agree and have changed our calculation 
accordingly.

Final Results of Reviews

    As a result of the comments received, we have changed the results 
from those presented in our preliminary results of review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
       Manufacturer/exporter              Time period         (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Machinery &                                              
 Equipment Import & Export Corp.,                                       
 Nantong Branch...................        09/01/92-08/31/93        44.99
PRC Rate..........................        04/18/91-08/31/92        42.42
                                          09/01/92-08/31/93        44.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and FMV may vary from the 
percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for 
all shipments of lug nuts from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For Nantong, which 
has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific 
rate published for the most recent (1992-1993) period; (2) for Jiangsu, 
which was previously investigated and given a separate rate, but did 
not respond to our request for information to determine whether it 
still qualified for a separate rate under our current test, the cash 
deposit rate, which is based on BIA, will be the PRC rate published for 
the most recent (1992-1993) period; (3) for the companies named above 
which did not respond to our questionnaire (China National Automotive 
Industry I/E Corp., Yangzhou, Ningbo, Shanghai Automobile, San Chien, 
Chu Fong and Tianjin) and for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit 
rate will be the PRC rate for the most recent (1992-1993) period; (4) 
for Rudong, which was a nonshipper and has not been found eligible for 
a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC rate for the 
most recent (1992-1993) period; and (5) for non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.
    These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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 reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification 
of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

[[Page 48690]]

    These administrative reviews 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: September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23334 Filed 9-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P