[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 221 (Thursday, November 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58372-58374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-29090]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-810]


Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review and termination in part.

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

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The 
review covers 18 manufactures/exporters and the period September 1, 
1994, through August 31, 1995. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received, the dumping margins have changed from those presented in the 
preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration 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 be 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    On July 8, 1996, the Department published the preliminary results 
(61 FR 35724) of its administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (September 20, 1991, 56 FR 
47737). The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by this review is one-piece and two-piece 
chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are more than 
\11/16\ inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal 
(hex) size of at least \3/4\ inches (19.05 millimeters) but not over 
one inch (25.4 millimeters), 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-plate 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 this review.
    During the period of review, chrome-plated lug nuts were provided 
for under subheading 7318.16.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review 
is dispositive. This review covers the following firms: Gourmet 
Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation (Gourmet), Buxton International 
Corporation (Buxton), Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co., Transcend 
International, Kuang Hong Industries Inc., San Chien Industrial Works, 
Ltd, Everspring Plastic Corporation, Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd., Gingen 
Metal Corp., Golwinate Associates, Inc., Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., 
Ltd., Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd., Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd., 
San Shing Hardware Works Co., Trade Union International Inc./Top Line, 
Uniauto, Inc., Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company and 
Multigrand Industries Inc. and the period September 1, 1994, through 
August 31, 1995. Buxton and Uniauto are related firms and responded as 
one firm, Buxton/Uniauto.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary 
results. We received timely comments from the petitioner, Consolidated 
International Automotive, and rebuttal comments from Buxton and 
Gourmet.

Comment

    Petitioner believes that the Department should apply the more 
adverse facts available (FA) rate of 10.67 percent to Buxton/Uniauto 
and Gourmet. Petitioner points out that these respondents have failed 
to provide questionnaire responses that can be reconciled with audited 
financial statements in prior reviews, and have also failed to do so in 
this review. Petitioner argues that respondents should not be rewarded 
for ongoing deficiencies with lower rate, particularly in light of the 
need for the Department to ensure accurate responses.
    Petitioner states that the Department adheres to one of two 
guidelines when applying facts available to a respondent that 
substantially cooperates, but fails to provide all the information 
requested in a timely manner or in the form requested. The Department 
either applies the highest rate ever applicable to the firm or the 
highest calculated rate in the review for the same merchandise and 
country. See Allied-Aerospace Co. v. United States, 995 F.2d 1185, 1188 
(Fed. Cir. 1993) Petitioner states that the

[[Page 58373]]

statute provides discretion for the Department to determine which 
guideline to use for FA and cites to United States v. Zenith Radio 
Corp., 64 C.C.P.A. 130, 142-144, 562 F.2d 1209, 1219-22 (Fed. Cir. 
1977). Further, the petitioner notes that the Department is entitled to 
great deference if there is substantial evidence in the record 
supporting the Department's choice. See Industria Fundicao Tupy v. 
United States, Slip Op. 96-113 (CIT, July 22, 1996).
    Petitioner argues that the Department is not bound by prior 
practice and may depart from its practice as long as it provides a 
reasonable explanation for the change. See Citrosuco Paulista, SA v. 
United States, 12 CIT 1196, 1209-1210, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1088 (CIT 
1988). Petitioner argues that by applying an adverse margin, the 
Department would be achieving the goal of the statute which is to 
determine the current margins as accurately as possible. See Rhone 
Poulenc v. United States, 899 F.2d at 1191 (Fed Cir. 67-68)
    Both respondents argue that they have cooperated and will continue 
to cooperate with the Department to the best of their abilities. They 
state that the petitioner has provided no new information or legal 
argument to cause the Department to change its long standing practice 
of refusing to apply adverse margins to cooperative respondents.

Department's Position

    Buxton/Uniauto and Gourmet provided responses to our 
questionnaires; however, none of the information was usable. 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 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) of the Act 
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 cannot be verified. Because Buxton/
Uniauto and Gourmet admit their submissions are unreconcilable to their 
respective audited financial statements, they are perforce 
unverifiable. Therefore we have determined to apply facts available to 
Gourmet and Buxton/Uniauto.
    Even though these firms submitted responses to our request for 
information, they submitted information that they knew could not be 
verified. Indeed, both firms acknowledged that the responses submitted 
for this POR were no more verifiable than similar responses submitted 
in previous reviews. While both firms have participated in several 
antidumping administrative reviews and are thoroughly familiar with the 
Department's requirements, they have failed to comply with the 
Department's standards. We believe these respondents have had 
sufficient notice of the Department's requirements for verifiable 
submissions and ample opportunity to provide information that is 
amenable to verification. Yet these respondents have continued to 
provide unusable data. Therefore, in accordance with 776(b), we 
determine that respondents have failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of their ability, and thus we are using an adverse inference 
in our application of facts available. In these finals results, we have 
used the highest calculated margin for any firm in any segment of this 
proceeding, 10.67 percent, as the rate for Gourmet and Buxton/Uniauto.
    Section 776(b) of the Act 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) 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) which accompanied the URAA, 
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 (61 FR 6812, February 22, 1996), 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, September 20, 1991), covering the period 
May 1, 1990 through October 31, 1990.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we have determined that the following 
margins exist for the period September 1, 1994, through August 31, 
1995.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                     Manufacturer exporter                       margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation........................     10.67
Buxton International/Uniauto..................................     10.67
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
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
Uniauto, Inc..................................................     10.67

[[Page 58374]]

                                                                        
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company....................     10.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions concerning all respondents 
directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Further, the following cash 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 administrative review, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed firms will be the rates initiated above; (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 in 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 6.93%, the all others rate established in the LTFV 
investigation.
    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 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 order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of the 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: November 4, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-29090 Filed 11-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M