[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55965-55970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27858]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-811]


Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its 1994-95 administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order

[[Page 55966]]

on steel wire rope from Korea (61 FR 20233). The review covers 25 
manufacturers/exporters for the period March 1, 1994, through February 
28, 1995 (the POR). We have analyzed the comments received on our 
preliminary results and have determined that no changes in the margin 
calculations are required. The final weighted-average dumping margins 
for each of the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled 
``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O. Barlow, Matthew Rosenbaum, 
or Kris Campbell, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 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).

Background

    On May 6, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of its 1994-95 administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from the Republic of Korea 
(61 FR 20233) (Preliminary Results). We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received case 
briefs from the petitioner, the Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope 
and Specialty Cable Manufacturers (the Committee), and rebuttal briefs 
from six respondents including Chung-Woo Rope Co., Ltd. (Chung Woo), 
Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd. (Chun Kee), Manho Rope & Wire Ltd. 
(Manho), Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Kumho), Ssang Yong Steel Wire 
Co., Inc. (Ssang Yong), and Sungjin Company (Sungjin). There was no 
request for a hearing. The Department has conducted this review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this review is steel wire rope. Steel wire 
rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel, 
other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or made up into 
articles, and not made up of brass-plated wire. Imports of these 
products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 
7312.10.9090. Excluded from this review is stainless steel wire rope, 
i.e., ropes, cables and cordage other than stranded wire, of stainless 
steel, not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, which is 
classifiable under HTS subheading 7312.10.6000. Although HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our own 
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    We have determined, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, 
that the use of facts available is appropriate for Boo Kook Corp., 
Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd., Hanboo Rope, Jinyang Wire Rope Inc., and 
Seo Jin Rope because they did not respond to our antidumping 
questionnaire. We find that these firms have withheld ``information 
that has been requested by the administering authority.'' Furthermore, 
we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is 
appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of these 
companies because they failed to cooperate by not responding to our 
questionnaire.
    Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a 
respondent in an administrative review on facts otherwise available 
because that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act 
authorizes the use of an inference adverse to the interests of that 
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act 
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. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, 
to the extent 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. (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 
2d sess. 870 (1994).)
    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. 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; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded 
the highest margin as adverse best information available (BIA) because 
the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business 
expense resulting in an unusually high margin).
    For a discussion of our application of facts available regarding 
specific firms, see our response to Comment 1 below.

Analysis of Comments Received

    Comment 1: The Committee argues that, for all uncooperative 
respondents, the Department must apply a rate of 23.5 percent because 
the rate of 1.51 percent used in the preliminary results undercuts the 
cooperation-inducing purpose of the facts available provision. The 
Committee contends that the Department is permitted to draw an adverse 
inference where a party has not cooperated in a proceeding (citing the 
SAA at 199). The Committee further asserts that the SAA (at 200) 
directs the Department, in employing adverse inferences, to consider 
the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of 
cooperation.
    The Committee references the Department's policy of applying an 
uncooperative rate based on the higher of (1) the highest of the rates 
found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the 
less than fair value (LTFV) investigation or prior administrative 
reviews; or (2) the highest calculated rate in the current review for 
any firm.1 The Committee

[[Page 55967]]

claims that the Department has used a higher rate than that established 
under this practice where the uncooperative rate was not sufficiently 
adverse to induce the respondents to submit timely, accurate and 
complete questionnaire responses. The Committee cites Silicon Metal 
From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 58 FR 65336, 65337 (December 14, 1993) (Silicon Metal), and 
Certain Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 41876 (August 14, 1995) 
(Pipe Fittings) in support of its position that the Department must use 
a sufficiently adverse uncooperative facts available rate to ensure 
that the respondent does not obtain a more favorable result by failing 
to cooperate. The Committee notes that, in these cases, the Department 
used a higher rate than derived using the standard two-tiered approach 
to derive the uncooperative rate. The Committee argues that the 
Department should once again deviate from its standard uncooperative 
rate determination practice since the dumping margin assigned to 
uncooperative respondents in this steel wire rope proceeding (1.5 
percent) has failed to induce the submission of questionnaire responses 
by a majority of respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Committee refers to this standard as the first tier in 
the Department's traditional two-tiered BIA methodology, but points 
out that the Department has not yet explicitly applied the two-
tiered methodology to administrative reviews initiated under the 
URAA. We note that our practice regarding the derivation of the 
dumping rate for uncooperative respondents has not changed for 
reviews conducted pursuant to URAA procedures. (see Antifriction 
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 
France, et al.: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 35713, 35715 (July 8, 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating what it views as an appropriate facts available 
rate, the Committee compared a price quotation of a single steel wire 
rope product from a Korean steel wire rope producer subject to this 
proceeding to the constructed value of this product, derived from 
various industry sources. The Committee calculates a dumping rate of 
23.5 percent using this approach and claims that this rate is a more 
appropriate ``uncooperative'' rate than the 1.51 percent rate the 
Department used in the preliminary results. The Committee cites Sodium 
Thiosulfate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 12934 (March 8, 1993) 
(Sodium Thiosulfate), in support of calculating a revised facts 
available rate in light of documented changes in manufacturing costs 
and import prices. It contends that, from the first quarter of the 
1992-94 POR to the last quarter of the 1994-95 POR, the manufacturing 
costs of steel wire rope increased significantly, while the value of 
imports of carbon steel wire rope declined. The Committee contends that 
the increase in manufacturing costs is not reflected in the price of 
steel wire rope exported to the United States and that this is 
indicative of continuing sales of steel wire rope at less than fair 
market value.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee and find that 
reliance on petitioner-supplied data as a basis for facts available 
would be inappropriate in the context of this review. The Department 
has broad discretion in determining what constitutes facts available in 
a given situation. Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp 
789 (CIT 1993) at 792; see also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United 
States, 996 F.2d. 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993) at 1191, which states 
``[b]ecause Congress has `explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill' 
in determining what constitutes the [best information available], the 
ITA's construction of the statute must be accorded considerable 
deference,'' citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 833-44 (1984).
    In any given review, a respondent will have knowledge of the 
antidumping rates from the investigation and past reviews but not of 
the rates that will be established in the ongoing review. Because under 
our facts available policy we consider the highest rate from the 
current review as one possible source of facts available, potentially 
uncooperative respondents will generally be less able to predict their 
facts available rate as the number of participants in the ongoing 
review increases. Thus, the facts available methodology induces 
respondents to participate and receive their own known rates as opposed 
to a potentially much higher unknown rate. Accordingly, this 
uncertainty in the facts available margin rate which may be selected 
satisfies the cooperation-inducing function of the facts available 
provision in this case.
    In addition, respondents have an incentive to respond to our 
request for information because of the possibility of eventual 
revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to the company. A 
respondent that does not participate in the administrative review is 
not eligible for revocation. Hence, a further reason the rate assigned 
to the uncooperative respondents in this review may be considered 
adverse is because it results in respondents remaining subject to the 
order without eligibility for revocation.
    We recognize that there are instances in which the uncooperative 
rate resulting from our standard methodology may not induce respondents 
to cooperate in subsequent segments of the proceeding. The few cases in 
which we have not relied on this approach have involved an extremely 
limited number of participants, and therefore a consequently small 
number of rates available for use as a basis for the uncooperative 
rate.2 For instance, in Sodium Thiosulfate, we used information 
supplied by the petitioner to establish the uncooperative rate for the 
only respondent that had shipments of subject merchandise during the 
POR. Similarly, in Silicon Metal, we resorted to petitioner-supplied 
data where we had a calculated rate for only one firm: ``[i]n this 
instance, we have only Andina's rate from the LTFV investigation * * *. 
Because Andina's rate is also the `all other' rate, Silarsa would be 
assured a rate no higher than Andina's, the only respondent who 
cooperated fully with the Department in this administrative review. The 
use of the uncooperative BIA methodology, in this instance, restricts 
the field of potential BIA rates to the rate established for one 
firm.'' Silicon Metal, at 65336 and 65337 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As noted, although we have explained our practice in terms 
of a two-tiered methodology in pre-URAA reviews, the cases where we 
deviated from this approach, as cited by the Committee, involved 
first-tier, uncooperative respondents, and our practice regarding 
the derivation of the dumping margin assigned to uncooperative 
companies has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our determination in Pipe Fittings is a further example of a 
situation in which the circumstances of the case clearly demonstrated 
that the uncooperative rate was not sufficient to induce the respondent 
to cooperate. In Pipe Fittings, we applied a petition-based rate to a 
non-responsive company that was the only company to have ever been 
investigated or reviewed: ``[we] have only calculated one margin, which 
was in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Due to the 
unusual situation, we have determined to use as BIA the simple average 
of the rates from the petition * * *. In not responding to our requests 
for information, Tupy could be relying upon our normal BIA practice to 
lock in a rate that is capped at its LTFV rate'' (see Pipe Fittings at 
41877-78).
    The concern in such cases with respect to the uncooperative rate 
methodology is that the lack of past rates, as well as the small number 
of participants in the current review, could allow a respondent in such 
a review to

[[Page 55968]]

manipulate the proceeding by choosing not to comply with our requests 
for information. In such cases the cooperation-inducing function of the 
facts available provision of the Act may not be achieved by use of the 
uncooperative rate methodology, in which case the Department will 
resort to alternative sources in determining the appropriate rate for 
uncooperative respondents.
    The cases cited by the Committee in support of its position 
establish only that we will consider, on a case-by-case basis as 
appropriate, petitioner-supplied data in situations involving a number 
of calculated rates insufficient to induce cooperation by respondents 
in the proceeding. In those cases, we did not have rates for more than 
one company and therefore determined that the use of a BIA rate higher 
than the highest rate in the history of the case was appropriate to 
encourage future cooperation.
    Because we have calculated rates from three companies in the LTFV 
final determination, eight companies in the first review, and six 
companies in this review, the concern over potential manipulation of 
antidumping rates cited in Sodium Thiosulfate, Silicon Metal, and Pipe 
Fittings does not exist in the present case. The lack of alternative 
information and the substantial amount of primary information on the 
record lead us to conclude that the Committee's information is inferior 
to the primary information. Therefore, we are satisfied that selection 
of the highest of these rates is appropriate for facts available for 
this review, is consistent with our practice, and is sufficiently 
adverse.
    Comment 2: The Committee contends that the Department failed to 
adjust Ssang Yong's home market price for ``other bank charges'' and 
differences in merchandise (DIFMER). The Committee also contends that 
the Department failed to deduct international freight and marine 
insurance in calculating Ssang Yong's U.S. price (USP).
    Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee. We 
appropriately adjusted for other bank charges and differences in 
merchandise in calculating normal value and for international freight 
and marine insurance in calculating USP. When disclosing the materials 
used in the preliminary results, we inadvertently attached Sung Jin's 
cover page to Ssang Yong's computer program. Although we did not make 
these adjustments in Sun Jin's program (because they were not 
appropriate for that company), we did make such adjustments in Ssang 
Yong's program.
    Comment 3: The Committee states that the Department correctly 
rejected claims by Chung Woo, Ltd., Kumho and Ssang Yong for duty 
drawback because these companies did not demonstrate the requisite 
connection between imports for which they paid duties and exports of 
steel wire rope. The Committee argues that these respondents failed to 
meet the requirements of the Department's two-pronged test for 
determining whether a party is entitled to an adjustment to USP for 
duty drawback because they have not shown that: (1) The import duty and 
the rebate received under the ``simplified'' Korean drawback program 
are directly linked, and (2) there were sufficient raw material inputs 
to account for duty drawback received on exports of steel wire rope. 
The committee claims that this test has been upheld by the Court of 
International Trade, citing Far East Machinery Co. v. United States, 12 
CIT 972, 699 F. Supp. 309 (1988).
    Respondents argue that the duty drawback amount received is tied 
directly to the amount of the export sales on which it is based and 
that this amount constitutes the rebate of a tax imposed directly upon 
the foreign like product, with in the meaning of Section 773(a)(6)(iii) 
of the Act. Respondents urge the Department to adjust USP for their 
claimed duty drawback amounts.
    Department's Position: We agree with the Committee and have not 
granted the adjustment for the simplified duty drawback amounts 
received by Chung Woo, Kumho, and Ssang Yong. As we stated in the 
preliminary results, we did not adjust the USP for duty drawback for 
respondents that reported it using the simplified method.
    As noted by the Committee, we apply a two-pronged test to determine 
whether a respondent has fulfilled the statutory requirements for a 
duty drawback adjustment (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 10900, 10950 
(February 28, 1995)). Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides for an 
upward adjustment to USP for duty drawback on import duties which have 
been rebated (or which have not been collected) by reason of the 
exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States. In 
accordance with this provision, we will grant a duty drawback 
adjustment if we determine that (1) import duties and rebates are 
directly linked to and are dependent upon one another, and (2) the 
company claiming the adjustment can demonstrate that there are 
sufficient imports of raw materials to account for the duty drawback 
received on exports of the manufactured product. The CIT consistently 
has accepted this application of the law. See Far Eastern Machinery, 
688 F. Supp. at 612, aff'd. on remand, 699 F. Supp. at 311; Carlisle 
Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 657 F. Supp. 1287, 1289 (1987); 
Huffy Corp. v. United States, 10 CIT 215-216, 632 F. Supp.
    The Department's two-pronged test meets the requirements of the 
statute. The first prong of the test requires the Department ``to 
analyze whether the foreign country in question makes entitlement to 
duty drawback dependent upon the payment of import duties.'' Far East 
Machinery, 699 F. Supp. at 311. This ensures that a duty drawback 
adjustment will be made only where the drawback received by the 
manufacturer is contingent on import duties paid or accrued. The second 
prong requires the foreign producer to show that it imported a 
sufficient amount of raw materials (upon which it paid import duties) 
to account for the exports, based on which it claimed rebates. Id.
    The respondents that reported duty drawback under the Korean 
simplified method fail both prongs of this test. With respect to the 
first criterion, these respondents stated in their rebuttal brief that 
the Korean government determines the simplified drawback amount using 
average import duties paid by companies that claimed duty drawback 
through the individual reporting method. (Companies that claim drawback 
using the individual, not simplified, reporting method must provide 
information to the government regarding actual import duties paid on 
inputs used in the production of the exported merchandise for which 
they claim drawback.) Accordingly, unlike companies that claimed 
drawback using the individual reporting method (see Comment 4, below), 
the companies that used the simplified reporting method were unable to 
demonstrate a connection between payment of import duties and receipt 
of duty drawback on exports of steel wire rope. Such companies also 
fail the second prong of our test because they did not demonstrate that 
they had sufficient imports of raw materials to account for the duty 
drawback received on exports of the manufactured product. Therefore we 
have not adjusted USP for drawback claimed by Chung Woo, Kumho, and 
Ssang Yong.
    Comment 4: The Committee argues that the Department should not 
adjust the USP for duty drawback claimed by Chun Kee and Manho. It 
claims that, even though these companies claim that

[[Page 55969]]

they use the individual duty drawback method, neither company 
demonstrated that it has fulfilled the second prong of the Department's 
test by showing that there were sufficient imports of raw materials to 
account for the duty drawback received on the exports of the subject 
merchandise. The Committee contends that the Department's questionnaire 
requires respondents to explain how duty drawback is calculated and to 
provide worksheets in support of the narrative response. The Committee 
claims that neither respondent made any attempt to demonstrate that 
there were sufficient raw material imports to account for the duty 
drawback received on the exports of the manufactured product, nor did 
respondents provide any calculations in support of their claimed 
adjustment aside from listing the amount of duty drawback received.
    Respondents contend that the Department verified in a prior review 
the system under which duty drawback was received and that they 
accurately responded to the Department's questionnaires in the present 
review. They claim that they answered all of the questions regarding 
duty drawback, and, if the Committee believed that the responses of 
both companies were inadequate, the Committee should have raised the 
issue prior to the issuance of the preliminary results of review.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee. We are 
satisfied that, under the individual method of applying for duty 
drawback, Korean companies are required to provide adequate information 
that shows that they had sufficient imports of raw materials to account 
for the duty drawback received on exports of the manufactured product. 
This satisfies the second prong of the duty drawback test as mentioned 
above and is consistent with our practice in the preliminary and final 
results of the first review. See Preliminary Results at 14421, 14422 
and Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 63499, 63506 (December 
11, 1995). In addition, we are satisfied that under the individual duty 
drawback method Korea makes entitlement to duty drawback dependent upon 
the payment of import duties, which satisfies the first prong of the 
duty drawback test.
    Comment 5: The Committee contends that the Department should not 
adjust Sung Jin and Ssang Yong's home market prices for credit 
expenses. The Committee claims that Sung Jin failed to provide adequate 
documentation in response to the Department's initial and supplemental 
requests for information regarding this expense. Specifically, the 
Committee provides three reasons to support its argument that Sung 
Jin's response was insufficient to support the claimed adjustment, as 
follows: (1) Sung Jin failed to provide any documentary support for the 
balance of short-term borrowing for October 1994 as required by the 
Department; (2) the sample documents provided by Sung Jin in support of 
the interest paid refer to only one of the banks to which Sung Jin paid 
interest; and (3) there is no documentary evidence in support of the 
interest paid or the balance of short-term borrowing except for one 
month in 1994.
    The Committee claims that Ssang Yong failed to: (1) Provide any 
documentary support for its cumulative daily balance; (2) provide 
worksheets describing how it calculated each customer-specific 
collection period; and (3) report the average collection period for 
certain home market customers for which a home market credit expense 
was claimed. The Committee cites Sonco Steel Tube Div., Ferrum, Inc. v. 
United States, 12 CIT 745, 751, 694 F. Supp. 959, 964 (1988), quoted in 
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 17 CIT 1185, 1188, 837 F. Supp. 437 (1993), 
in support of its argument that the burden of demonstrating entitlement 
to a circumstance-of-sale adjustment is on the party requesting the 
adjustment.
    Respondents assert that both Sung Jin and Ssang Yong responded 
fully to the Department's questionnaire and that the Department decided 
correctly that the responses were adequate. They claim that they gave 
details concerning their home market credit expense as requested and 
that the Department acknowledged their validity implicitly by accepting 
the information provided and using it in its preliminary results of 
review.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee and have 
accepted respondents claims for an adjustment to home market prices for 
credit expenses. Both companies responded adequately to our initial and 
supplemental questionnaires regarding this expense.
    Our initial questionnaire requested an explanation of the 
calculation of the credit expense, including the source of the short-
term interest rates used in this calculation. Sung Jin provided a 
general explanation of the credit expense and, regarding the short-term 
interest used in this calculation, provided the loan balance and 
interest payments for each month of 1994 (Sung Jin calculated its POR-
average short-term rate by dividing interest paid over loans received). 
In our supplemental questionnaire, we asked Sung Jin to provide further 
information regarding the source of the interest rates used in 
calculating this expense. Sung Jin provided a sample of source 
documentation to back up its calculation of the short-term interest 
rate. Specifically, the company provided the names of the banks from 
which they borrowed during one of the POR months (October 1994), as 
well as a sample bank statement.
    We consider this information provided by Sung Jin to be responsive 
to our requests for information. We did not ask Sung Jin to provide all 
backup documentation to support its calculation of its short-term 
interest rate but instead requested that the company provide the source 
of its calculated rate. In Sung Jin's case, this source is the monthly 
loan balances and interest payments made by the company during 1994. 
Sung Jin appropriately provided each monthly loan balance and interest 
payment, and it provided source documentation regarding one of the POR 
months. In addition, Sung Jin adequately explained its overall 
calculation of its credit expense.
    For Ssang Yong, we are also satisfied that it provided adequate 
information regarding the calculation of its credit expense. While, as 
the Committee argued, Ssang Yong did not provide source documents 
regarding its cumulative daily loan balance and interest incurred 
(which Ssang Yong used to calculate its short-term interest rate), we 
did not ask for backup documentary support for its cumulative daily 
balance but instead asked for the source of the interest rate, which it 
did provide. With respect to the customer-specific average collection 
period, Ssang Yong provided such periods for most of its customers and 
provided a detailed breakout of the calculation of this period for one 
customer. The calculation methodology Ssang Yong used was the same for 
each customer. We are satisfied that Ssang Yong provided accurate 
responses to our requests for information.
    Comment 6: The Committee contends that the Department erred in 
indicating that Myung Jin had no individual rate from any prior segment 
of this proceeding. It claims that, in the course of assigning Myung 
Jin a no-shipments rate, the Department mistakenly stated that Myung 
Jin has no individual rate from any segment of this proceeding. The 
Committee asserts that Myung Jin has a prior rate of 1.51 percent from 
the 1992-1994 administrative review and that, in accordance with 
Department precedent, a respondent with no shipments during the POR 
should receive the same rate that it most recently received in a 
previously completed segment of the proceeding.

[[Page 55970]]

    Department's Position: We agree with the Committee that Myung Jin 
previously received a rate of 1.51 percent. This is the rate assigned 
to it in the 1992-1994 administrative review and remains the rate 
applicable to Myung Jin, given that it did not make shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.

Final Results of Review

    We determine the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the period March 1, 1994, through February 28, 1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic & Pacific..........................................        1.51
Boo Kook Corporation........................................        1.51
Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd.........................        0.01
Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd.....................................        0.04
Dae Heung Industrial Co.....................................       (\1\)
Dae Kyung Metal.............................................        1.51
Dong-Il Metal...............................................        1.51
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd........................        1.51
Dong Young Rope.............................................        1.51
Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc.......................................        1.51
Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc......................................        1.51
Korea Sangsa Co.............................................       (\1\)
Korope Co...................................................        1.51
Kumho Rope..................................................        0.01
Kwang Shin Ind..............................................        1.51
Kwangshin Rope..............................................        1.51
Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd......................................        0.00
Myung Jin Co................................................  (\2\) 1.51
Seo Hae Ind.................................................        1.51
Seo Jin Rope................................................        1.51
Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd..............................        0.06
Sung Jin....................................................        0.00
Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc........................       (\1\)
TSK (Korea) Co., Ltd........................................       (\1\)
Yeonsin Metal...............................................   0.18(\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate
  from any segment of this proceeding.                                  
\2\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant 
  segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.      

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between export price and normal value may vary from the 
percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions on each exporter directly to the 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 these 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be those rates established above (except that, if the 
rate for a firm is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash 
deposit of zero will be required for that firm); (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) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review or the original investigation, the cash deposit 
rate will be 1.51 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the 
LTFV Final Determination (58 FR 11029).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification 
of the 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 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: October 22, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-27858 Filed 10-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P