[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 199 (Monday, October 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53584-53585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25609]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-006]


Steel Jacks From Canada; 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: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping finding on steel jacks from 
Canada. The review covers two manufacturer/exporters of this 
merchandise to the United States, New-Form Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(NFM) and Seeburn Metal Products (Seeburn). The period covered is 
September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994. The review indicates the 
existence of dumping margins for this period.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman, 
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-
0665 or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 17, 1966, the Treasury Department published in the Federal 
Register (31 FR 7485) the antidumping finding on steel jacks from 
Canada. Based on a timely request for review, we initiated an 
administrative review of two firms, NFM and Seeburn, on November 14, 
1994 (59 F.R. 56549), for the 1993-1994 period of review (POR), in 
accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.22(c). The Department is now conducting 
this administrative 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 in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are multi-purpose hand-operated 
heavy-duty steel jacks, used for lifting, pulling, and pushing, 
measuring from 36 inches to 64 inches high, assembled, semi-assembled 
and unassembled, including jack parts, from Canada. The merchandise is 
currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item 
numbers 8425.49.00. The HTS numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers two manufacturer/exporters, NFM and Seeburn. The 
POR is September 1, 1993, through August 31, 1994.

Seeburn

    On February 3, 1995, the Department determined that the products 
imported by Seeburn were automobile tire jacks outside the scope of the 
antidumping finding on steel jacks from Canada. Therefore, because 
Seeburn had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and 
Seeburn has never before been reviewed, we are assigning Seeburn the 
``all others'' rate.

United States Price (USP)

    Because NFM sold all its merchandise to unrelated U.S. customers 
prior to importation, we based USP on purchase price in accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act. We calculated purchase price based on prices 
that were either F.O.B. or delivered to the customers' premises. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we adjusted USP for 
discounts, brokerage and handling, foreign and U.S. inland freight, and 
customs duty, 

[[Page 53585]]
where applicable. Since NFM did not report customs duty for U.S. sales 
which were delivered to customers' premises, the Department used the 
Customs duty rate applicable for this merchandise.
    We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as 
outlined in Silicomanganese From Venezuela; Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 F.R. 31204 (June 17, 1994) 
(Silicomanganese).
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value (FMV)

    Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third-
country sales, we determined that NFM's home market was viable in 
accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.48. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773 of the Act, we compared U.S. sales of subject merchandise 
with sales of such or similar merchandise in the home market. We 
calculated FMV using monthly weighted-average prices of sales of 
identical jacks.
    FMV was based on packed, delivered home market prices, with 
deductions for discounts, foreign inland freight and insurance, home 
market credit expenses, rebates, and home market packing, in accordance 
with Section 773(a)(1) and (a)(4) of the Act. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(1) of the Act, we added U.S. packing, credit, 
warehousing, and commissions to FMV. We did not offset U.S. commissions 
by deducting home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of 
U.S. commissions, as we normally do pursuant to section 353.56(b)(1) of 
the Department's regulations, because the respondent's claimed indirect 
selling expenses were calculated using unsupported estimates.
    We included in FMV the amount of value-added taxes collected in the 
home market, in accordance with our practice as outlined in 
Silicomanganese. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following dumping margins exist for the POR:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
            Review period               Manufacturer/exporter  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/1/93-8/31/94.......................  NFM...................      28.49
                                       Seeburn...............    * 28.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review; because this firm has   
  never been reviewed, rate is the all others rate explained in (4)     
  below.                                                                

Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of 
publication of this notice. Any hearing will be held 44 days after the 
date of publication or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties 
may submit case briefs within 30 days of the publication date of this 
notice. Rebuttal briefs, 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 a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analyses 
of issues raised in any such case briefs or at a hearing.
    The following deposit requirements shall be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise that are 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, and will remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review:
    (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies shall be the 
rates established in the final results of this review;
    (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be their previously 
established company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
    (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, prior 
reviews, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but 
the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate shall be the rate 
established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the 
merchandise;
    (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered 
in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all 
others'' rate established in the first review conducted by the the 
Department in which an ``all others'' rate was established, as 
discussed below.
    On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral 
Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and 
Federal Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, 
822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that once an ``all others'' rate 
is established for a company it can only be changed through an 
administrative review. The Department has determined that in order to 
implement these decisions, it is appropriate to reinstate the ``all 
others'' rate from the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for 
correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in 
proceedings governed by antidumping duty orders.
    In proceedings governed by antidumping findings, unless we are able 
to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury LTFV 
investigation, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to 
adopt the ``all others'' rate established in the first final results of 
administrative review published by the Department (or that rate as 
amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation) 
for the purposes of establishing cash deposit rates in all current and 
future administrative reviews.
    Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty finding 
and we are unable to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the 
Department of Treasury LTFV investigation, the Department has 
determined to apply the ``all others'' rate of 28.35 percent 
established in the first final results published by the Department (52 
F.R. 32957, September 1, 1987).
    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 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.
    This administrative review and this 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: September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-25609 Filed 10-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P