[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35724-35726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17278]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-810]
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Termination in Part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on chromeplated lug nuts from Taiwan. The review
covers 19 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the
United States for the period September 1, 1994, through August 31,
1995. The review indicates the existence of margins for all firms.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between export
price and the NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with each
argument (1) and statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, 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) 482-4195 or 482-3814,
respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
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). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping
duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). The
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 47349). The
petitioner, Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated),
requested that we conduct an administrative review for the period
September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1995. A respondent, Chuen Chao
Enterprise Company LTD (Chuen Chao) requested an administrative review
of its sales. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 12, 1995 (60 FR
53164), and sent questionnaires to the following firms: Anmax
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Anmax), Buxton International Corporation
(Buxton), Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co. (Chu Fong), Everspring Plastic
Corp. (Everspring), Gingen Metal Corp. (Gingen), Goldwinate Associates,
Inc. (Goldwinate), Gourmet Equipment Corporation (Gourmet), Hwen Hsin
Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Hwen), Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Kwan
How), Kwan Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd (Kwan Ta), Kuang Hong Industries,
Ltd. (Kuang), Multigrand Industries Inc. (Multigrand), San Chien
Electric Industrial Works, Ltd. (San Chien), San Shing Hardware Works
Co., Ltd. (San Shing), Transcend International Co. (Transcend), Trade
Union International Inc./Top Line (Top Line), Uniauto, Inc. (Uniauto),
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company, Inc (Wing) and Chuen Chao.
On December 11, 1995, Chuen Chao withdrew its request for
administrative review. Since Chuen Chao was the only party which
requested a review of its sales, we are terminating the review of Chuen
Chao and its entries will be liquidated at the rate at which they were
entered. Gourmet responded to the questionnaire. Buxton and Uniauto are
related parties and so responded to the questionnaire as one
respondent.
Questionnaires that were sent to Chu Fong, Kwan How, Kwan Ta,
Everspring, Gingen, Goldwinate, Multigrand and Kuang were returned as
undeliverable. These firms will receive the ``all others''
[[Page 35725]]
rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 6.93
percent.
The Department has now conducted the administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the 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 this review conform to the April 19, 1994 scope
clarification.
Imports covered by this review are shipments of one-piece and two-
piece chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, more than 11/16
inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal (hex)
size of at lease 3/4 inches (19.05 millimeters) but not more than on
inch (25.4 mm), plus or minus 1/16 of an inch (1.59 mm). 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 in
the scope of this review. Chrome-plated lock nuts are also not in the
scope of the review.
During the period of review (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading
7318.16.00.00. Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience
and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
review is dispositive.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
We preliminarily determine that in accordance with section 776(d)
of the Act, the use of facts available is appropriate for Anmax, Hwen,
San Chien, San Shing, Transcend, Top Line, and Wing because these firms
did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. The
Department finds that, in not responding to the questionnaire, these
firms failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to
comply with requests for information from the Department. Because
necessary information is not available on the record with regard to
sales by these firms as a result of their withholding the requested
information, we must make our preliminary determination based on facts
otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
Where the department must base the entire dumping margin for a
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the
Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of the
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other information placed on the record. The
statute also provides that the facts otherwise available may be based
on secondary information. Because information from prior proceedings
constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) provides that the
Department shall, to the extend practicable, corroborate that secondary
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that corroborate
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value.
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review (60 FR 49567), where the Department disregarded
the highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting
in an unusually high margin). No such circumstances exist in this case
which would cause the Department to disregard a prior margin. In this
case, we have used the highest rate from any prior segment of the
proceeding. 10.67 percent. This rate was calculated in the Amendment to
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (56 FR 47737),
covering the period May 1, 1990 through October 31, 1990.
The Department also sent questionnaires to Gourmet and Buxton/
Uniauto which provided us with responses to our questionnaires.
However, while planning for verification of these two firms, the
Department received submissions from each firm stating that a
verification would produce the same results as in previous reviews
where the Department was unable to reconcile the data Gourmet and
Buxton/Uniauto submitted in their responses to our questionnaire with
their audited financial statements (see Buxton/Uniauto and Gourmet
submissions dated March 28, 1996, and May 1, 1996, respectively).
Reliance on the accounting system used for the preparation of the
audited financial statements is a key and vital part of the
Department's determination that a company's sales and constructed value
data are credible. Section 776(a)(2)(D) states that the Department
``shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available
in reaching the applicable determination under this title'' if an
interested party or any other person provides information but the
information can not be verified. Because their submissions were
unreconcilable to their audited financial statements and thus
unverifiable, we have determined to apply facts available to Gourmet
and Buxton/Uniauto. However, because these firms cooperated with our
request for information, we are not using an adverse inference in
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. In this case, we
have used Gourmet's and Buxton/Uniauto's highest rates from a prior
review which are 6.47 percent and 6.93 percent respectively.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period September 1, 1994, through
August 31, 1995:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/Exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation........................ 6.47
Buxton International/Uniauto.................................. 6.93
Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co................................. 6.93
Transcend International....................................... 10.67
San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd............................... 10.67
Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd..................................... 10.67
Everspring Plastic Corp....................................... 6.93
Gingen Metal Corp............................................. 6.93
Goldwinate Associates, Inc.................................... 6.93
Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd................................ 10.67
[[Page 35726]]
Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd................................. 6.93
Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd.................................. 6.93
Kuang Hong Industries Ltd..................................... 6.93
Multigrand Industries Inc..................................... 6.93
San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd............................. 10.67
Trade Union International Inc./Top Line....................... 10.67
Uiauto, Inc................................................... 6.93
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company.................... 10.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(c)(6). Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days
of the date of publication (19 CFR 353.38(b)). Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after publication of this notice, or
the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs
within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice (19 CFR
353.38(c)). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, which must be
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
the final results of review, including the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such written comments.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between export price and NV may vary from the percentage
stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue
appraisement instructions on each manufacturer/exporter directly to the
U.S. 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 for by section
751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed
firms will be those firms' rates established in the final results of
this administrative 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 previous 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 conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 6.93
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: July 1, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-17278 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M