[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30854-30856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15460]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-412-602]


Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From the United Kingdom; 
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 requests from interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged steel 
crankshafts from the United Kingdom. This review covers one producer/
exporter of this merchandise to the United States for the review period 
September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the foreign market value (FMV).
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments 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: June 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
J. David Dirstine or Lyn Johnson, 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

Background

    On September 2, 1994, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
(59 FR 45664) of the antidumping duty order on certain forged steel 
crankshafts from the United Kingdom. We received a request from UES 
Ltd.-Forgings Division (UEF) to review its sales to the United States. 
On October 13, 1994, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c) (1994), we 
initiated an administrative review of this order for UES Ltd.-Forgings 
Division covering the period September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994 
(59 FR 51939).
    The Department has now conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Tariff Act).

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are certain forged steel 
crankshafts. The term ``crankshafts,'' as used in this review, includes 
forged carbon or alloy steel crankshafts with a shipping weight between 
40 and 750 pounds, whether machined or unmachined. These products are 
currently classifiable under item numbers 8483.10.10.10, 8483.10.10.30, 
8483.10.30.10, and 8483.10.30.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS). Neither cast crankshafts nor forged crankshafts with shipping 
weights of less than 40 pounds or more than 750 pounds are subject to 
this review. The HTS item numbers are

[[Page 30855]]

provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description 
remains dispositive.

Such or Similar Merchandise

    In determining similar merchandise comparisons pursuant to section 
771(18) of the Act, we considered the following physical 
characteristics, which appear in order of importance: (1) twisted vs. 
untwisted; (2) number of throws; (3) forging method; (4) engine type; 
(5) number of bearings; (6) number of flanges; and (7) number of 
counterweights. We applied weight separately based on a range of plus 
or minus 20 percent of the weight of the U.S. model. If there were two 
or more potential home market matches after applying each of the 
matching criteria, including the 20-percent weight range, we chose the 
home market model that was closest in weight to the U.S. model. Our 
reasons for applying weight as we did are outlined in the Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Forged 
Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom, 60 FR 52150, 52151-152 
(October 5, 1995).

United States Price

    In calculating U.S. price (USP), we used purchase price as defined 
in section 772 of the Tariff Act, because all sales to the first 
unrelated purchaser took place prior to importation into the U.S. We 
calculated purchase price based on the packed, c.i.f. price to the 
first unrelated purchaser in the United States.
    We made deductions, where appropriate, for ocean freight (which 
includes foreign inland freight), U.S. duties, marine insurance and 
U.S. brokerage and handling expenses in accordance with section 
772(d)(2) of the Act.

Foreign Market Value

    Section 733(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act requires the Department to 
compare sales in the United States with home market sales of such or 
similar merchandise made in the ordinary course of trade if the home 
market is viable. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we 
determined that the home market is viable, and it is therefore an 
appropriate basis for calculating FMV.
    Where we used home market sales for comparisons, we calculated FMV 
based on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to customers in the 
United Kingdom. We made deductions, where appropriate, for rebates. We 
also adjusted for home market movement charges.
    Because all price-to-price comparisons involved purchase price 
sales, we also made circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments, where 
appropriate, for differences in credit expenses, warranty expenses, 
customer- requested tooling expenses, and post-sale warehousing 
expenses in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a). UEF did not claim home 
market packing expenses since subject merchandise is loaded into bins 
as part of the production process with no packing material expenses 
incurred. In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, we then 
added U.S. packing costs to all home market prices.
    For certain U.S. products, we found no home market product 
comparisons after applying the model-matching methodology, the 90/60-
day contemporaneity test, and the difference-in-merchandise test. For 
these products, we based FMV on constructed value (CV) in accordance 
with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We calculated CV based on the 
sum of the respondent's submitted cost of materials, fabrication, 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, U.S. packing and 
profit. In accordance with sections 773(e)(1)(B) (i) and (ii) of the 
Act, we included the actual general expenses calculated which exceeded 
the statutory minimum (ten percent of the cost of manufacturing (COM)). 
We used the statutory minimum profit, eight percent of the sum of COM 
and general expenses, because the actual profit amount was less than 
the statutory minimum.
    We made adjustments to CV, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56, for 
differences in circumstances of sale. These adjustments were made for 
differences in credit expenses, warranties, and warehousing.
    On February 10, 1995, the petitioner, the Krupp Gerlach Company 
(KGC) submitted an allegation that UES Ltd.-Forgings Division (UEF) 
sold unmachined subject merchandise in its home market at less than its 
cost of production (COP) during the period of review. After analyzing 
the allegation, the Department determined, on January 18, 1996 (see 
memo to file), that reasonable grounds did not exist to believe or 
suspect that home market sales were made below COP, as required to 
initiate a COP investigation under 773(b) of the Act. Therefore, we did 
not initiate an investigation of sales made below COP for this review 
period.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP with FMV, we preliminarily 
determine the following weighted-average margin for the period 
September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994:
    Producer/Exporter: UEF.
    Margin (Percent): .52.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days and 
interested parties may request a hearing not later than 10 days after 
publication of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment 
on these preliminary results and may submit written arguments in case 
briefs on these preliminary results within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 
in case briefs, may be filed no later than 7 days after the time limit 
for filing case briefs. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 7 days 
after the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of 
case briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(e). The Department will publish the final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in the case or briefs.
    Upon completion of the final results in this review, 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 percentage stated above. The Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirement 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 for by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
company will be that established in the final results of this 
administrative review (except that no deposit will be required if the 
margin is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (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) for all other producers and/or exporters of 
this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 6.55 percent, the 
adjusted ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall

[[Page 30856]]

remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.
    This notice also 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 is in accordance with section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 
of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.22(c)(5)).

    Dated: June 10, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-15460 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P