[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 42 (Friday, March 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8039-8041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4850]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-560-801, A-583-825, and A-570-844]


Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Melamine 
Institutional Dinnerware Products From Indonesia, Taiwan and the 
People's Republic of China

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

 
[[Page 8040]]

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson at (202) 482-4929 or Erik 
Warga at (202) 482-0922, Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20230.

Initiation of Investigation:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'').

The Petition

    On February 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') received a petition filed in proper form by The American 
Melamine Institutional Tableware Association (``petitioners''), whose 
members include Continental/SiLite International Co., Lexington United 
Corp./National Plastics Corp., and Plastics Manufacturing Company 
(domestic producers of melamine institutional dinnerware products 
(``MIDPs'')).
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioners allege 
that imports of MIDPs from Indonesia, Taiwan and the People's Republic 
of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be sold in the United States 
at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, 
and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material 
injury to, a U.S. industry.
    Petitioners are an association the majority of whose members are 
producers of the domestic like product and, therefore, have standing to 
file the petition because they are an interested party, as defined 
under section 771(9)(E) of the Act.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires the Department to 
determine, prior to the initiation of an investigation, that a minimum 
percentage of the domestic industry supports an antidumping petition. A 
petition meets these minimum requirements if the domestic producers or 
workers who support the petition account for (1) at least 25 percent of 
the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50 
percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that 
portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the 
petition.
    A review of the production data provided in the petition and other 
information readily available to the Department indicates that 
petitioners account for more than 25 percent of the total production of 
the domestic like product and for more than 50 percent of that produced 
by companies expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. 
Petitioners represent more than 90 percent of total production of the 
domestic like product. Moreover, the only other known domestic producer 
of MIDPs, Gessner Products, has expressed support for the petition. The 
Department received no expressions of opposition to the petition from 
any domestic producer or workers. Accordingly, the Department 
determines that the petition is supported by the domestic industry.

Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation is all items of dinnerware (e.g., 
plates, cups, saucers, bowls, creamers, gravy boats, serving dishes, 
platters, and trays) that contain at least 50 percent melamine by 
weight and have a minimum wall thickness of 0.08 inch. This merchandise 
is classifiable under subheadings 3924.10.20, 3924.10.30, and 
3924.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
investigation is dispositive.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less 
than fair value upon which our decisions to initiate are based. Should 
the need arise to use any of this information in our preliminary or 
final determinations, we will re-examine the information and may revise 
the margin calculations, if appropriate.

Indonesia

    Petitioners based export price (EP) on a price quotation for a 9-
inch plate obtained from a market research report. The terms are ex-
factory and, hence, no deductions to EP were made.
    Petitioners based normal value (NV) on a price quotation for a 9-
inch plate obtained from a market research report. The terms are ex-
factory and, hence, no deductions to NV were made.
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, the calculated dumping margin for 
MIDPs from Indonesia is 89.84 percent ad valorem.

PRC

    Petitioners prepared two calculations of constructed export price 
(CEP). In the first instance, petitioners calculated CEP based on a PRC 
producer's affiliated reseller's price quote. Petitioners deducted cash 
discounts, ocean freight, U.S. inland freight, containerization, and 
duties. For purposes of initiation, we disallowed the deduction for 
U.S. inland freight because the petition did not specify the U.S. 
customer's location and did not contain any evidence indicating the 
actual amount of any inland freight expenses incurred.
    Alternatively, petitioners argue that the Act requires U.S.-
incurred selling expenses to be deducted from CEP. Although section 
772(d)(1) of the Act requires this deduction from CEP, petitioners did 
not make a corresponding adjustment to NV for selling expenses. 
Therefore, we have not accepted this deduction for purposes of the 
initiation. We may consider this issue further later in the 
investigation.
    Petitioners assert that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) 
within the meaning of sections 771(18) of the Act and in accordance 
with section 773(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the normal value of the 
product should be based on the producer's factors of production, valued 
in a surrogate market economy country. In previous investigations, the 
Department has determined that the PRC is an NME, and the presumption 
of NME status continues for the initiation of this investigation. See, 
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure 
Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, 60 
FR 16437 (March 30, 1995).
    It is our practice in NME cases to calculate NV based on the 
factors of production of those factories that produced MIDPs sold to 
the United States during the period of investigation.
    In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the 
opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of 
the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual 
exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
    Petitioners based the PRC producers' factors of production (i.e., 
raw materials, labor, and energy) for MIDPs on petitioners' own usage 
amounts. Petitioners valued these factors, where possible, on publicly 
available published Indonesian data. Where this data was unavailable, 
petitioners used other acceptable sources of information. Petitioners 
estimated the surrogate value of scrap based on their own experience as 
to the scrap rate in MIDP production.
    Indonesia is an acceptable surrogate country because its level of 
economic development is comparable to that of 

[[Page 8041]]
the PRC and Indonesia is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise.
    Petitioners also based factory overhead and general expenses on 
data contained on the public records of previous investigations in 
which the information was also used as surrogate values for factors of 
production of merchandise from the PRC.
    Petitioners based profit on a publicly available published industry 
study of the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, September 1994, for the 
Processing and Manufacturing of Metals, Chemicals, and Products 
thereof.
    Finally, petitioners based packing on their own U.S. packing costs, 
not including packing for ocean voyage. For the purposes of this 
investigation, we have disallowed the packing costs because they were 
based on U.S. values rather than a factor value from an appropriate 
surrogate country.
    Based on comparisons of CEP to the factors of production, the 
calculated dumping margin for MIDPs from the PRC, after adjustments 
made by the Department, is 7.06 percent ad valorem.

Taiwan

    Petitioners used a market research firm to obtain an EP price 
quotation from a Taiwanese producer. Petitioners deducted a discount 
from this price.
    In addition, petitioners calculated CEP based on a Taiwan company's 
affiliated reseller price quotation. Petitioners believe that the 
Department should use CEP because there is substantial evidence that, 
during the POI, this manufacturer produced subject merchandise in 
Taiwan that was sold in the United States.
    Petitioners deducted from CEP discounts, ocean freight, U.S. inland 
freight, containerization, selling expenses and inventory carrying 
expenses.
    For purposes of initiation, we are rejecting this CEP calculation 
because there is insufficient evidence that the Taiwan manufacturer, 
Tar-Hong, produced in Taiwan the subject merchandise sold by its U.S. 
affiliate during the POI. However, as this investigation proceeds, we 
will consider this issue further.
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, the calculated dumping margin for 
MIDPs from Taiwan, after adjustments made by the Department, is 53.13 
percent ad valorem.

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to 
believe that imports of MIDPs from Indonesia, the PRC and Taiwan are 
being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Initiation of Investigations

    We have examined the petitions on MIDPs and have found that they 
meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act, including the 
requirements concerning allegations of the material injury or threat of 
material injury to the domestic producers of a domestic like product by 
reason of the complained-of imports, allegedly sold at less than fair 
value. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to 
determine whether imports of MIDPs from Indonesia, the PRC and Taiwan 
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than 
fair value. Unless extended, we will make our preliminary 
determinations by July 15, 1996.

Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives 
of the governments of Indonesia and PRC, as well as to the Taiwan 
authorities. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of 
the petition to each exporter named in the petition.

International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by March 22, 1996, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of MIDPs from Indonesia, the PRC and 
Taiwan are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material 
injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination in any of the 
investigations will result in that investigation being terminated; 
otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and 
regulatory time limits.

    Dated: February 26, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-4850 Filed 2-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P