[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 183 (Thursday, September 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48970-48972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23488]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-538-802]


Shop Towels From Bangladesh; 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 shop towels from Bangladesh. The review 
covers 6 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1993, through 
February 28, 1994.
    We have preliminarily determined that one exporter made no 
shipments during the POR and that the use of best information available 
(BIA) is appropriate for two exporters. We have also preliminarily 
determined that sales by the remaining exporters 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: September 21 ,1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Rosenbaum, Davina Hashmi or 
Michael Rill, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 20, 1992, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(57 FR 9688) the antidumping duty order on shop towels from Bangladesh. 
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 March 1, 1993, through February 28, 1994. On 
March 15, 1994, the petitioner, Milliken & Company, requested an 
administrative review for six manufacturers/exporters of shop towels 
from Bangladesh.
    We published a notice of initiation of the review on April 15, 1994 
(59 FR 18099). The Department is now conducting this review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

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

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this administrative review is shop towels. 
Shop towels are absorbent industrial wiping cloths made from a loosely 
woven fabric. The fabric may be either 100 percent cotton or a blend of 
materials. Shop towels are currently classifiable under item numbers 
6307.10.2005 and 6307.10.2015 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS). 
Although HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding 
remains dispositive.

United States Price

    In calculating USP, the Department used purchase price as defined 
in section 772(b) 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., c.i.f., or c&f 
prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made 
adjustments, where applicable, for ocean freight, insurance, and 
forwarding charges in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    We calculated FMV based on constructed value (CV) in accordance 
with section 773(e) of the Act, because none of the respondents sold 
such or similar merchandise in the home market or in any third-country 
market during the POR. The CV includes the cost of materials and 
fabrication of the merchandise exported to the United States, plus 
general expenses, profit and packing. To calculate CV we used: (1) 
Actual general expenses, or the statutory minimum of 10 percent of 
materials and fabrication, whichever was greater; (2) profit, as 
calculated by using the statutory minimum of 8 percent of materials, 
fabrication costs and general expenses; and (3) packing costs for 

[[Page 48971]]
merchandise exported to the United States. Because the only general 
expenses incurred were those incurred for U.S. sales, we used these 
general expenses in our calculation of CV. We made no adjustments.

Currency Conversion

    In our analysis, we normally make currency conversions in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.60 using the exchange rates certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Since the Federal Reserve Bank of New 
York does not provide exchange rate information for Bangladesh, we used 
the average monthly exchange rates published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.

Best Information Available

    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have preliminarily 
determined that the use of BIA is appropriate for two companies that 
did not submit timely or complete responses to the questionnaire. 
Section 776(c) of the Act states that the Department shall use BIA 
wherever a company refuses or is unable to produce information in a 
timely manner and in the form required, or significantly impedes an 
administrative review.
    In determining what to use as BIA, section 353.37(b) of the 
Department's regulations provides that the Department may take into 
account whether a party refuses to provide requested information or 
impedes a proceeding. The Department employs a two-tiered methodology 
that takes into account the degree of cooperation provided by a 
respondent.
    In the case of respondents who refuse to provide information 
requested in a timely manner, or who otherwise significantly impede the 
review, 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 less- 
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior administrative reviews; 
or (2) the highest calculated rate in the current review for any firm. 
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 (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)). See also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United 
States, 996 F.2d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Krupp Stahl AG et al v. United 
States, 822 F. Supp 789 (CIT May 26, 1993).
    In our original questionnaire we stated that companies must report 
all entries of purchase price sales of subject merchandise during the 
POR. In Khaled Textiles Mills Ltd. (Khaled)'s initial response to our 
questionnaire, it indicated that it did not produce shop towels during 
the review period and therefore was not interested in participating in 
this review. Since Khaled did not indicate in its submission that it 
had no shipments during the review period we sent a letter to Khaled in 
order to clarify its statement. Khaled responded by indicating that it 
did ship shop towels to the United States during the period of review, 
from the prior year's production. We then sent Khaled a letter 
requiring it to respond completely to our original questionnaire. After 
several extensions, Khaled responded to our questionnaire. Khaled 
indicated that it had already answered the narrative portion of the 
questionnaire in the first administrative review and was only 
submitting additional sales data for the second review period. However, 
the Department does not accept questionnaire responses submitted in 
previous reviews because the Department views each review as a distinct 
and separate proceeding. See Barium Chloride from the People's Republic 
of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 54 FR 52 
(January 3, 1989).
    The information that Khaled did submit was highly deficient. Khaled 
submitted only the invoice number, bill of lading number and date, 
invoice value, terms of sale, freight expenses and weight for each 
shipment. Without a narrative response, we do not know if Khaled 
included all relevant expenses. In addition, the constructed value 
information Khaled submitted could not be used since Khaled calculated 
one constructed value for both shop towels and non-subject merchandise, 
and it was not calculated on a per-unit basis. Given the deficiencies 
of Khaled's response, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we 
have determined that the use of BIA is appropriate. Because Khaled 
attempted to provide the necessary information to the Department in a 
timely manner, we have considered Khaled to be a cooperative 
respondent. Accordingly, we have preliminarily assigned Khaled a margin 
of 9.61 percent, which is the highest rate ever applicable for Khaled.
    In Sonar's initial response to our questionnaire, it indicated that 
it was no longer producing shop towels and had temporarily closed its 
factory. Sonar further stated that it did not have competent staff to 
respond to the questionnaire. Since Sonar did not indicate that it had 
no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review, we 
sent a letter to Sonar in order to clarify its statement. Sonar 
responded by indicating that it did ship subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. In this letter it provided the commercial 
invoice number, the bill of lading number, the invoice value and ocean 
freight. We then sent another letter requesting that it respond fully 
to the questionnaire. Sonar did not submit a response until four days 
after the extended due date. We have returned Sonar's late submission 
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(b)(2)(1994). Since Sonar did not 
submit a timely response to the questionnaire, in accordance with 
section 776(c) of the Act, we have determined that the use of BIA is 
appropriate for Sonar, and we have considered Sonar to be an 
uncooperative respondent. Accordingly, we have preliminarily assigned 
Sonar a margin of 42.31 percent, which is the highest rate in the LTFV 
investigation and the highest rate ever found in this proceeding.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period March 1, 1993, through February 
28, 1994:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Manufacturer/exporter                   Margin(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Star Mills Ltd...................................       \1\42.31  
Greyfab (Bangladesh) Ltd...............................           0.00  
Hashem International...................................           0.00  
Khaled Textile Mills Ltd...............................           9.61  
Shabnam Textiles.......................................           1.74  
Sonar Cotton Mills (Bangladesh) Ltd....................         42.31   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments or sales subject to this review; rate is from LTFV      
  investigation.                                                        

    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 

[[Page 48972]]
instructions concerning all respondents 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; (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 4.60 percent, the 
``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (57 FR 3996). 
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 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).

    Dated: September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23488 Filed 9-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P