[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51269-51273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25119]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-803]
Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without
Handles, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of the antidumping duty administrative
review of heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or
without handles, from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 5, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its
administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged
hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (HFHTs)
from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (61 FR 15218). This review
covers the period February 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995. We gave
interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary
results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have
changed the results from those presented in the preliminary results of
review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Maureen Flannery,
AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4733.
Applicable Statute and Regulations: Unless otherwise stated, 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 February 2, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 6524) a notice of opportunity to request administrative
reviews of these antidumping duty orders. On February 27, 1995, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), two resellers of the subject
merchandise to the United States, Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import &
Export Corporation (FMEC) and Shandong Machinery Import & Export
Corporation (SMC), requested that we conduct administrative reviews of
their exports of subject merchandise to the United States. On February
28, 1995, the petitioner, Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc., requested
that we conduct administrative reviews of SMC, FMEC, Henan Machinery
Import & Export Company (Henan), and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export
Company (Tianjin). We published the notice of initiation of these
antidumping duty administrative reviews on March 15, 1995 (60 FR
13955). We received no questionnaire responses from either Henan or
Tianjin. Therefore, we have based our analysis of these two companies
on facts otherwise available (FA). On April 5, 1996, the Department
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the
PRC (61 FR 15218). The Department is conducting these administrative
reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of HFHTs from the
PRC comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1)
hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/
sledges); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges
(bars and wedges); (3) picks/mattocks; and (4) axes/adzes.
HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls,
picks, and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may
not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles;
assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging
bars and tampers; and steel woodsplitting wedges. HFHTs are
manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to
required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final
shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product
shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may
include shot-blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the
insertion of handles for handled products. HFHTs are currently provided
for under the following Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) subheadings:
8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically
excluded are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) in
weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and
under. This review covers four exporters of HFHTs from the PRC. The
review period is February 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995.
Factor Valuations: Changes From the Preliminary Results
In the preliminary results, we valued factors of production based
on the year in which production occurred. We have not used that
methodology for the final results because it is inconsistent with our
standard practice. Our standard factors methodology, like our standard
constructed value methodology, is intended to reflect value during the
period of investigation (POI) or the POR. Thus, these methodologies
rely on costs during the POI or the POR. Therefore, for the final
results, we have valued the factors of production using surrogate
values for the review period.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received case briefs and rebuttal briefs from
petitioner and FMEC, SMC, and Tianjin.
Comment 1: Petitioner and respondents state that the Department
made errors in the inflation calculations for its factors of production
analysis.
Department's Position: We agree that we made a clerical error in
calculating the wholesale price index (WPI) inflator for the
preliminary results, and have made the necessary corrections for the
final results.
Comment 2: Respondents claim that the Department should not use the
WPI to derive 1993 and 1994 values for steel, iron straps and wood.
Respondents argue that the record shows no indication that steel prices
are tied to any inflation index, and that the Department's other 1994
factor values show that Indian import prices have actually fallen in
comparison with 1993 or even 1992 Indian import prices.
Further, respondents state, there is no ``secondary information''
on the record to support the use of the WPI. The respondents claim
that, if the Department relies on the 1993 Indian import statistics for
iron straps and wood, those values should be adjusted by the average
change in values from
[[Page 51270]]
1993 to 1994 for the other factor values, rather than by the WPI.
Petitioner argues that the WPI is the most appropriate inflation
measure because it reflects prices paid for inputs at the wholesale
level, where producers purchase them. Further, petitioner claims, it is
widely recognized that steel prices move with overall economic
activity; there is no evidence that the price of steel, iron straps or
wood move in step with the other factor inputs. Thus, petitioner
argues, the Department should not make the requested adjustment to its
preliminary results.
Department's Position: We disagree with respondents that steel
factor values for periods prior to the review period should not be
adjusted for inflation using the WPI. There is no record evidence to
support respondents' argument that the WPI inflator is arbitrary when
applied to steel. As we state in our factors analysis memo dated March
27, 1996, we judged the 1994 Indian import data for steel to be
unreliable, because it was based on a very small quantity of steel
imports; we also determined that the 1993 Indian import data for steel
was aberrational. Therefore, absent contemporaneous data and a more
product-specific inflation index, we have adjusted steel factor values
from periods prior to the period of review (POR) using the WPI, as we
have done in prior reviews of this order, and in numerous other non-
market economy (NME) cases. See, e.g., Bicycles From the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 60 FR 56567 (November 9, 1995) (Bicycles), and Certain Helical
Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results
of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 41994 (August 13, 1996)
(Lock Washers).
With respect to wood and iron straps, we have obtained surrogate
values corresponding with the POR for the final results. Therefore,
respondents' argument with respect to these inputs is moot.
Comment 3: Petitioner argues that the Department should use the
price quotations for special high quality steel bars that petitioner
obtained from three Indian steel producers and submitted for the
record, instead of the inflated 1992 Indian import statistics data
which the Department used in the preliminary results. Petitioner claims
that the data the Department relied upon are too broad, including steel
that does not meet the exacting requirements of HFHT production. As a
result, the average import values the Department used are too low, and
do not accurately reflect the value of the steel used in making hand
tools. Petitioner points out that the Department has used alternatives
such as specific price quotations in situations where import statistics
were found to be distortive or aberrational. Petitioner cites, for
example, the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Furfuryl Alcohol from the PRC, 60 FR 22544, 22548 (May 8, 1995)
(Furfuryl Alcohol) and the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Coumarin from the PRC, 59 FR 66895 (December 28, 1994)
(Coumarin). Petitioner further argues that, in the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation, the Department recognized that broad basket
categories comprising many different types and sizes of steel, such as
proposed by respondents, do not accurately reflect the prices of the
specific types of steel used to manufacture HFHTs. Final Determination
of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the PRC, 56 FR 241 (Jan. 3,
1991) (Final LTFV).
Respondents contend that the Department should use the information
contained in Statistics For Iron & Steel Industry in India, published
in 1994 by the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). Respondents
argue that this source provides data that are contemporaneous with the
review period, are specific to the thicknesses of steel bars used to
make the subject merchandise, and have been used by the Department in
other antidumping proceedings. See Drawer Slides from the People's
Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value, 60 FR 54472 (October 24, 1995) (Drawer Slides) and Bicycles.
Further, respondents contend, the SAIL data reflect prices that are
comparable to the prices the Chinese factories actually paid for steel.
Respondents argue that the price quotations supplied by petitioner
are not contemporaneous with the POR, and do not represent the type of
steel used in the Chinese manufacture of HFHTs. Respondents claim that
the specifications offered for the steel quotations are for a higher
quality steel than the Chinese HFHT factories actually use. Respondents
further contend that the price quotations are aberrational in terms of
ordinary steels, and are similar to the 1993 Indian import data that
the Department judged to be aberrational. See Memorandum to the File
for the 1993-1994 review, dated March 27, 1996.
Respondents argue that petitioner's price quotations are not
publicly available published data. Respondents assert that the
Department should use such unpublished, non-publicly available
information submitted by an interested party only as a last resort.
Petitioner disputes respondents' contention that the SAIL data is
representative of the type of steel used to make hand tools, stating
that it covers steel bars used in non-critical structural work instead
of the high quality bars used in HFHTs. Further, petitioner asserts,
respondents' data appears to cover steel with a wide range of carbon
content, which the Department found to be unacceptable in the LTFV
investigation.
Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner that we should
use its submitted price quotations, and with respondents that we should
use the SAIL data instead of the Indian import statistics we used in
the preliminary results. Our objective is to value the surrogate steel
at prices which most closely reflect the type of steel used by the PRC
producer. (Here, we have matched respondents' hot rolled C45 steel bars
with category number 7214.5 in the Indian import statistics, forged
bars and rods containing between 25 and 60 percent carbon.) We have
found that the chemical composition of the steel used is a more
important determinant of its end use than is size. See, e.g. Lock
Washers at 41997.
While the SAIL data submitted by respondents in this case is more
size-specific than the Indian import statistics we used in the
preliminary results, it is less specific as to grade and chemical
composition. The SAIL data presents average values for steel of unknown
grade and chemical composition. Also, in the final determination of
these orders, we rejected respondent's proposal of applying an average
rate comprising many different types and sizes of steel, because we
determined that using average values results in a less accurate
calculation. Final LTFV at 245.
Our use of SAIL data in Drawer Slides and Bicycles was based on our
finding that, although less contemporaneous than the other data on the
record, the SAIL data provided prices for steel that most closely
matched the specifications of the steel used in those particular cases.
See Drawer Slides at 54475, and Bicycles at 56573. However, in this
case, we find that the Indian import data more closely matches the
steel used to produce hand tools.
We rejected petitioner's submitted steel price quotations for
similar reasons. The price quotations are based on a higher quality
steel than what is actually used by the respondents in hand tool
production. Therefore, consistent with our practice, we find it
[[Page 51271]]
more appropriate to use the Indian import data. Although we used price
quotations in Furfuryl Alcohol and Coumarin, in those cases we found
the price quotations to be superior to the other available data.
Therefore, for the final results, we continue to use Indian import
statistics to value steel, because it is the most specific to the grade
and chemical composition of the type of steel used by respondents in
hand tool production.
Comment 4: Petitioner states that the Department should use factor
inputs to value wooden pallets, as the Department did in the previous
review. Although the necessary information to do this is not on the
record of this review, petitioner suggests that the Department value
the pallets using factor inputs derived from data submitted on the
public record in the preceding reviews, adjusted for inflation. If the
Department judges this approach to be inappropriate for this review,
petitioner requests that the Department collect the necessary
information on pallet inputs in all subsequent administrative reviews
of this order.
Respondents argue that, unlike in the prior review, the record in
this review is clear that the factories buy wooden pallets. Respondents
assert that there is no established Departmental practice or legal
authority for applying a factors methodology to all packing materials.
Respondents assert that the Department must consider the evidence on
the record that the factories do not make pallets and reject
petitioner's argument.
Department's Position: We agree with respondents. Unlike in the
prior review, the record of this review indicates that the Chinese
factories do not construct wooden packing pallets themselves, but
purchase them already constructed. Thus, using surrogate values for
complete pallets results in a more accurate calculation than valuing
the wood and nails separately. Moreover, the statute and the
Department's regulations do not require the Department to construct a
value for packing materials. For these reasons, we have continued to
value the cost of a complete pallet for the final results.
Comment 5: Respondents object to the Department's use of the
Economist Intelligence Unit's Investing, Licensing & Trading Conditions
Abroad (IL&T) data as the surrogate labor rate source, stating that
this source provides estimates based not on actual wage rates, but on
rates stipulated in various Indian laws. Respondents point out that the
Department rejected this data source in Bicycles.
Instead, respondents argue that the Department should use the data
contained in the publication, Foreign Labor Trends--India (FLTI),
prepared by the American Embassy in New Delhi, which provides 1992
Indian wage rates broken down into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled
categories. As an alternative, respondents suggest that the Department
use the Yearbook of Labor Statistics (YLS), which the Department
recently used in Bicycles. Respondents state that, should the
Department use this source, SIC code 381 includes the manufacture of
hand tools. Since the YLS does not differentiate among skill levels,
respondents suggest a methodology for using the IL&T data as a
``scale'' to derive skill levels from the YLS data.
Respondents further comment that their suggested wage rates are
comparable to other surrogate rates used by the Department. Respondents
specifically point to the Indonesian wage rates the Department used in
Disposable Pocket Lighters from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (Lighters), 60 FR 22359
(May 5, 1995) and Furfuryl Alcohol. Petitioner supports the
Department's continued use of the IL&T for valuing labor and challenges
respondents' argument in favor of the YLS data. Petitioner argues that
respondents have made no showing why SIC code 381 is the appropriate
code for the hand tool industry, and points out that, since YLS wage
rates vary greatly among SIC codes, choosing the correct code is
essential. Petitioner cautions that the Department should not
arbitrarily use a data source it has rejected as a ratio to apply to a
different information source, as respondents suggest.
Petitioner states that the fact that the alternative wage rates
suggested by respondents may be comparable to Indonesian wage rates
used by the Department in two other recent NME cases is irrelevant, as
the Department has selected India as the surrogate country for this
review.
Department's Position: We agree with respondents in part. As we
stated in Bicycles, the IL&T, which we used for the preliminary
results, provides estimates based not on actual wage rates, but on
rates stipulated in various Indian laws. See e.g., Memorandum to
Barbara R. Stafford, Factors Valuation Memo, Nov. 1, 1995, at 20
(public memo on file in B-099 of the Commerce Department). Therefore,
we have not used IL&T data for the final results. We recalculated labor
rates, using data from the YLS. Unlike the FLTI data that respondents
prefer, the YLS provides wage rates on an industry-specific basis. We
used the daily wage rate specified for SIC code 381, ``manufacture of
fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment,'' because
the description of the various industries this category covers was the
best match for the hand tool industry. The YLS does not provide wage
rates for different skill levels; we therefore applied the same rate to
all three skill levels reported by respondents. Having found the IL&T
data to be an inappropriate source for wage rates, it would be
inappropriate to use the IL&T data to differentiate among skill levels,
as respondent suggests. Because the YLS provides wage rates from 1990,
we inflated the data for the review period, using the consumer price
index, published in the International Monetary Fund's International
Financial Statistics.
We disagree with respondents that a comparison of their suggested
wage rates to Indonesian wage rates used by the Department in Lighters
and Furfuryl Alcohol is relevant, since those cases entail different
industries and a different surrogate country than does this review.
Comment 6: Respondents state that, consistent with past practice,
the Department should use the actual prices Chinese companies paid in
convertible currencies to market-economy suppliers. Respondents cite
Oscillating Ceiling Fans from the PRC, 56 FR 55271 (October 25, 1991)
(Fans), as an example of this practice. Respondents claim that the
HFHTs case is distinct from Coumarin, in which the Department qualified
this approach where inputs were ``purchased from market-economy
countries by trading companies for use by their suppliers.''
Respondents state that here, some steel inputs were imported by the
same Chinese company which sold the subject merchandise to the United
States, virtually nullifying the possibility of price manipulation.
Thus, respondents conclude, using these prices is the most accurate way
to value the inputs.
Petitioner points out that in the third review of HFHTs, the
Department considered and rejected Chinese import prices for steel, in
favor of surrogate country prices. Petitioner asserts that the
Department may use actual purchase prices in limited circumstances, if
the NME manufacturer purchases the inputs from a market economy
supplier and pays in convertible currency. These circumstances are not
met in this review, as the inputs were purchased from a market economy
country by a PRC trading company, which then transferred the inputs to
the PRC manufacturer.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. It is the
Department's
[[Page 51272]]
normal practice in NME cases to value the factors of production using
surrogate country input prices. The Department normally allows for the
valuation of inputs based on the actual purchase price of the input
only when the NME manufacturer purchases the inputs from a market
economy supplier and pays in a convertible currency. See, e.g., Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the
People's Republic of China, 59 FR 58818 (November 15, 1994)
(Saccharin), and Fans.
As we explained in Coumarin, this rule does not extend to inputs
purchased by a trading company who then resells the input to the
manufacturer. See Coumarin at 66900. The record of this review
demonstrates that respondents, not their supplier factories, imported
steel from a market economy source. Respondents then sold the steel to
the factories, who paid them in renminbi. Thus, the criteria
established in Fans and Saccharin for use of actual import prices to
value steel are not satisfied in this case.
Moreover, the respondents' claim with regard to nullification of
price manipulation is irrelevant. The rationale behind use of actual
import prices of the NME producer is that the producer's import prices
more accurately reflect its costs of the particular input. Fans at
55275. Respondents misconstrue this exception because they fail to
recognize that the focus of inquiry is the NME producer's costs, not
the costs of the NME trading company. The market-economy price paid by
the trading company does not represent the cost to the manufacturer,
and the trading company's price to the manufacturer is not a market-
economy price. Therefore, for these final results, we have used
surrogate values to value all steel inputs used in the production of
HFHTs.
Comment 7: The respondents assert that the Department's use of a
price reported in a December 1989 cable from the U.S. Embassy in India,
adjusted by the WPI, to value inland rail freight is less
contemporaneous than other rail freight data on the record, and is
unsupported by secondary data. Respondents argue that the information
in Doing Business in India, published by the Ministry of External
Affairs of the Government of India, is more current, is official
government data, and provides specific rates on a per-kilometer basis.
Petitioner objects to respondents' suggested alternative rail
freight rate. Petitioner points out that the data respondents submitted
consists of a single, average rate. This rate would distort freight
cost calculations by overstating the per-kilometer costs of long trips
and understating the per-kilometer costs of short trips. Petitioner
argues that because the rate is only one digit, it is inherently
imprecise. Further, its source is unknown. When selecting surrogate
data, petitioner asserts, the primary focus is on the accuracy and
specificity of the data; the fact that respondents' data is slightly
more current is not dispositive. Petitioner states that the Embassy
cable data provides rates for varying distances, unlike the
respondents' data, which provides one rate for all distances.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. The 1989 Embassy
cable data we used to value inland rail freight is less contemporaneous
than data provided by respondents by one year, but it is more precise
than the average freight rate contained in respondents' submission,
because it provides freight rates for various distances. Therefore, we
continued to use this data for the final results.
Comment 8: Respondents object to the Department's use of a selling,
general and administrative (SG&A) expenses figure of 17.99 percent,
derived from the April 1995 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Bulletin,
because (1) it is based on information that does not apply to the POR;
(2) unlike data used in Bicycles and Lock Washers, it reflects too
broad an industry spectrum; (3) the figure is aberrational, since
during previous reviews, the figure was considerably smaller; and (4)
under similar circumstances, such as in Bicycles, the Department
rejected similarly aberrational data. Instead, respondents propose
using the figure of 10 percent that the Department used in its
preliminary results for 1993 production.
Petitioner supports the Department's use of data from the RBI
Bulletin for calculating SG&A expenses. Petitioner argues that
respondents' reliance on Bicycles in this regard is misplaced because,
in that case, the Department had industry-specific information on SG&A
expenses in the surrogate country that were lower than those provided
in the petition. Thus, the Department found the RBI figure to be
uncorroborated, and of no probative value. Petitioner asserts that the
Department has no such evidence in this case. Petitioner points out
that the Department did use RBI data in Lock Washers.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. In Bicycles, we
based SG&A on industry-specific information. In this review, we did not
have SG&A data specific to the hand tool industry. The SG&A rate of
17.99 percent, which we used for both 1993 and 1994 production in the
present review, was derived from 1992-1993 data, the most recent
available data. (Our preliminary analysis memorandum, dated March 27,
1996, erroneously states that we used the 9.5 percent rate for 1993
production. We did not use this rate because it is derived from 1991-
1992 data.)
Further, we do not consider this rate to be aberrational. The
difference between the 17.99 percent rate used in this review, and the
9.5 percent rate used in the prior review, is the result of a change in
the Department's methodology for calculating SG&A, rather than an
indication of an aberration. The 17.99 percent figure includes amounts
for interest and insurance that the 9.5 percent figure does not. See
Lock Washers at 41999, in which we amended our preliminary results to
include amounts for interest and insurance in SG&A. Therefore, we have
not recalculated SG&A for the final results.
Comment 9: Tianjin argues that the Department exceeded its
authority by applying to it a PRC-wide rate. Tianjin cites UCF America
Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 96-42 (CIT Feb. 27, 1996) (UCF America)
and Sigma Corp. v. United States, 841 F. Supp. 1255, 1267 (CIT 1993)
(Sigma Corp.), in which the Court expressed concern over the
Department's NME policy, in support of its position.
Tianjin argues that, in UCF America, the Court's primary concerns
were that the PRC-wide rate increases the complexity of administrative
reviews and requires NME suppliers to participate, even if their
presence in the proceedings is unnecessary. Tianjin concludes that this
policy contravenes 19 U.S.C. section 1675, which was amended to ``limit
the number of reviews in cases in which there is little or no interest,
thus limiting the burden on petitioners and respondents, as well as the
administering authority.'' Id. (quoting H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1156, 98th
Cong., 2d Sess. 181 (1984). Thus, by applying the PRC-wide rate to
Tianjin, the Department exceeded the authority of the statute and
ignored the express intent of Congress and of the Court of
International Trade (CIT).
Petitioner points out that the issue of Tianjin's separateness was
irrelevant in the Department's determination of Tianjin's dumping
margin. The Department merely followed its policy of assessing
uncooperative respondents the highest rate from any prior segment of
the proceedings for each imported like product. Petitioner asserts,
moreover, that the Department would be justified in assigning to
Tianjin a PRC-wide rate under UCF America. Petitioner points out that
Tianjin failed
[[Page 51273]]
to establish its independence from the PRC government in the LTFV
investigation. In this review, Tianjin forfeited its opportunity to
establish separateness by not responding to the Department's
questionnaire.
Petitioner argues that the cases Tianjin cited support the fact
that Tianjin is liable for the PRC-wide rate. In Sigma Corp.,
petitioner states, the CIT rejected the use of a PRC-wide rate because
the Department unexpectedly switched from company-specific to a PRC-
wide rate for all respondents without giving them a chance to prove
their independence. Petitioner asserts that the UCF America decision
specifically endorsed the earlier decision in Tianjin Machinery Import
& Export Corp., 806 F. Supp. at 1013-15, that Tianjin should receive a
PRC-wide dumping margin.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. Regardless of the
Department's views on the concerns expressed by the CIT in UCF America
regarding the ``all others'' rates, those concerns are not implicated
in this case. The ``all others'' category is reserved for companies
that have never been investigated or reviewed. Petitioner requested a
review of Tianjin and Henan, and they refused to respond to the
Department's request for information. Therefore, we conducted the
review of these companies on the basis of adverse facts available,
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Under our NME policy, Tianjin,
Henan and all other exporters that have not established that they are
entitled to a separate rate are considered to be part of a single,
government-controlled enterprise (the NME entity). Because Tianjin and
Henan failed to cooperate, and because they are considered to be part
of the NME entity, the entire NME entity has received a rate based on
adverse facts available. See Preliminary Results at 15220.
Comment 10: Respondents argue that the 1993 values for pallets, PVC
bags and SG&A should be changed to reflect the 1993 values the
Department used for the final results in the previous (1993-1994)
review. Respondents also claim that the Department should adjust 1994
values to eliminate bias. They argue that, while the POR covers imports
during February 1994 through January 1995 and production beginning in
January 1994, the Indian import data the Department used includes data
for April 1994 through January 1995. Thus, respondents claim, the
Department should adjust all values, except for those for HFHTs
produced in 1993, to coincide with the 1994 calendar year.
Petitioner argues that respondent has offered no citation to any
evidence in the record to support its contention that 1993 values for
pallets and PVC bags should be changed. Petitioner asserts that, in the
prior review, the Department considered and rejected respondents'
argument that Indian import statistics for 1994 should be adjusted to
reflect the POR, stating that the Indian import data was both complete
and contemporaneous.
Department's Position: As we describe above, we have changed our
factor valuation methodology for the final results to correspond with
the POR. Therefore, respondents' arguments with respect to 1993 factor
values is moot.
With respect to 1994 surrogate information, data is available for
the January through March 1994 period, and we have used that data for
our final results. Therefore, respondents argument with respect to
deflating the data is moot.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our review, we have determined that the following
margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp:
Axes/Adzes................................................. 8.74
Bars/Wedges................................................ 13.20
Hammers/Sledges............................................ 7.44
Picks/Mattocks............................................. 83.47
Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corp:
Bars/Wedges................................................ 42.97
Hammers/Sledges............................................ 14.70
Picks/Mattocks............................................. 70.31
PRC-Wide Rates:
Axes/Adzes................................................. 21.92
Bars/Wedges................................................ 66.32
Hammers/Sledges............................................ 44.41
Picks/Mattocks............................................. 108.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between United States price and normal value may vary from
the percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of this notice of final results of reviews for all
shipments of HFHTs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of these final
results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash
deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above which have
separate rates (FMEC and SMC) will be the rates for those firms as
stated above for the classes or kinds of merchandise listed above; (2)
for axes/adzes from SMC, which are not covered by this review, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent review of
that class or kind of merchandise in which SMC received a separate
rate--that is, the February 1, 1992 through January 31, 1993 review;
(3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rates will be the
PRC-wide rates established in these final results of this
administrative review; and (4) the cash deposit rates for non-PRC
exporters of the subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. We determine the PRC-
wide rates to be: 44.41 percent for hammers/sledges, 66.32 percent for
bars/wedges, 108.20 percent for picks/mattocks, and 21.92 percent for
axes/adzes. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under section 353.26 of the Department's regulations 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice is in accordance with section
751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 of the
Department's regulations.
Dated: September 23, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-25119 Filed 9-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P