[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