[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64055-64058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-412-602]


Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From the United Kingdom; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Intent to Revoke Order

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


[[Page 64056]]


ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review and intent to revoke order.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged 
steel crankshafts from the United Kingdom in response to a request by 
respondent British Steel Forgings (BSF), a producer. This review covers 
shipments of this merchandise to the United States during the period 
September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. Based upon BSF's three 
consecutive years of de minimis margins, we intend to revoke the order 
with respect to crankshafts from the United Kingdom, based on our 
preliminary determination that BSF is the only known producer of 
crankshafts.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made 
below normal value (NV).
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dirstine, Lyn Johnson, or 
Richard Rimlinger, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4733.

Applicable Statute

    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 12, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' 
(60 FR 47349) of the antidumping duty order on certain forged steel 
crankshafts (crankshafts) from the United Kingdom.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1)(1995), the petitioner, Krupp 
Gerlach Company (KGC), and BSF requested that we conduct an 
administrative review of BSF's sales. We published a notice of 
initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on October 
12, 1995 (60 FR 53164). The Department is conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review are certain forged steel 
crankshafts. The term ``crankshafts'' as used in this review includes 
forged carbon or alloy steel crankshafts with a shipping weight between 
40 and 750 pounds, whether machined or unmachined. These products are 
currently classifiable under item numbers 8483.10.10.10, 8483.10.10.30, 
8483.10.30.10, and 8483.10.30.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS). Neither cast crankshafts nor forged crankshafts with shipping 
weights of less than 40 pounds or more than 750 pounds are subject to 
this review. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the 
scope of the order.
    This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of crankshafts, and 
the period September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by the respondent by using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, the 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and the selection 
of original documentation containing relevant information. Our 
verification results are outlined in the public versions of the 
verification reports.

Intent To Revoke

    On September 29, 1995, BSF submitted a request, in accordance with 
19 CFR 353.25(b), to revoke the order covering crankshafts from the 
United Kingdom with respect to BSF's sales of this merchandise.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), this request was 
accompanied by a certification from BSF that it had not sold the 
relevant class or kind of merchandise at less than NV for a three-year 
period, including this review period, and would not do so in the 
future. BSF also agreed to its immediate reinstatement in the relevant 
antidumping order, as long as any firm is subject to this order, if the 
Department concludes under 19 CFR 353.22(f) that, subsequent to 
revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
    In the two prior reviews of this order, we determined that BSF sold 
crankshafts from the United Kingdom at not less than NV. The Department 
conducted a verification of BSF's response for this review and 
preliminarily determines that BSF sold crankshafts at not less than NV 
during the review period. Based on BSF's three consecutive years of de 
minimis margins, we have preliminarily determined that it is not likely 
that BSF will in the future sell subject merchandise at less than NV. 
Therefore, we intend to revoke the order on crankshafts from the United 
Kingdom, based on our preliminary determination that BSF is the only 
known producer of crankshafts, if these preliminary findings are 
affirmed in our final results.

Foreign Like Product

    In determining similar merchandise comparisons pursuant to section 
771(16) of the Act, we considered the following physical 
characteristics, which appear in order of importance: (1) Twisted vs. 
untwisted; (2) number of throws; (3) forging method; (4) engine type; 
(5) number of bearings; (6) number of flanges; and (7) number of 
counterweights. We applied weight separately based on a range of plus 
or minus 20 percent of the weight of the U.S. model. If there were two 
or more potential home market matches after applying each of the 
matching criteria, including the 20 percent weight range, we chose the 
home market model that was closest in weight to the U.S. model. Our 
reasons for using the weight criterion are contained in the Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Forged 
Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom, 60 FR 52150, 52151-152 
(October 5, 1995).

United States Price (USP)

    For sales made by BSF, we calculated an export price (EP), in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers in the United States prior 
to importation into the United States and the constructed export price 
methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.
    We calculated export price based on delivered prices to unrelated 
purchasers. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, ocean 
freight, marine insurance, U.S. duties, and brokerage and handling 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act.

[[Page 64057]]

Normal Value (NV)

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we determined that the 
home market (HM) is viable and an appropriate basis for calculating NV.
    On March 14, 1996, KGC submitted an allegation that BSF sold 
subject merchandise in its home market at less than its cost of 
production (COP) during the period of review. After analyzing the 
allegation, the Department determined that reasonable grounds exist to 
believe or suspect that HM sales of the foreign like product were made 
below COP (see memo to Holly A. Kuga dated April 19, 1996). 
Accordingly, the Department conducted a sales-below-COP investigation 
for this review period.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP as the sum 
of reported materials, labor, factory overhead, and general expenses, 
and compared COP to HM prices, net of price adjustments.
    As a result of our COP investigation, we found that it was 
necessary to disregard certain HM sales pursuant to section 773(b)(1) 
of the Act. In accordance with sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the 
Act, we found that 20 percent or more of respondent's sales of a given 
product during the POR were at prices less than COP and, therefore, 
that below-cost sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities. We also determined, based on a comparison of 
each below-cost price to the weighted-average COP for the period for 
that product, that below-cost sales were made at prices which would not 
permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    Where HM sales were used for comparisons, we calculated NV based on 
packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to customers in the United 
Kingdom. We made deductions, where appropriate, for rebates and for HM 
movement charges. We also made circumstances-of-sale (COS) adjustments, 
where appropriate, for differences in credit expenses, warranty 
expenses, customer-requested tooling expenses, and post-sale 
warehousing expenses, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a).
    BSF did not claim HM packing expenses since subject merchandise is 
loaded into reusable bins as part of the production process with no 
packing material expenses incurred. In accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, we then added U.S. packing costs to all HM 
prices.
    BSF reported that its sales in the home and U.S. markets were made 
at the same level of trade and channel of distribution. Therefore, BSF 
did not request a level-of-trade adjustment. Our analysis and 
verification of BSF's response confirmed that the selling functions 
performed for EP and HM sales are comparable. Therefore, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, we compared sales at the same 
level of trade and did not make a level-of-trade adjustment to NV for 
these preliminary results.
    For certain U.S. sales, we found no comparable home market sales 
after applying the model-matching methodology, the contemporaneity 
test, and the difference-in-merchandise (difmer) test. For these sales, 
we based NV on constructed value (CV), in accordance with section 
773(a)(4) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of BSF's submitted cost of materials and fabrication, 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit, and 
U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, 
we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by BSF in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
    We made COS adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56, by 
deducting home market direct selling expenses from CV and adding U.S. 
direct selling expenses to CV. These adjustments were made for 
differences in credit expenses, warranties, and warehousing.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin 
exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
      Manufacturer/exporter               Time period          (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Steel Forgings..........  09/01/94-8/31/95...........      0.49 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, 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 a notice of final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such 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 directly to the Customs Service.
    If our intent to revoke is finalized, the revocation will apply to 
all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after September 1, 1995. The 
Department will then order the suspension of liquidation ended for all 
such entries and will instruct the Customs Service to release any cash 
deposit or bonds. The Department will further instruct Customs to 
refund with interest any cash deposits on post-September 1, 1995 
entries. In addition, the Department will terminate the review covering 
subject merchandise from the United Kingdom sold during the period 
September 1, 1995, through August 31, 1996, which was initiated on 
October 17, 1996 (61 FR 54154).
    If we do not revoke, the following deposit rates will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of these administrative reviews 
for all shipments of crankshafts from the United Kingdom entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for reviewed company will be the rate established in the 
final results of this review (except that no deposit will be required 
if the margin is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (2) 
for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review or the original less-than-fair-
value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or 
exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be 6.55 
percent, the adjusted ``all others'' rate from the less-than-fair-value 
investigation.
    These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

[[Page 64058]]

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, intent to revoke, and notice are in 
accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 
CFR 353.22, and 19 CFR 353.25.

    Dated: November 25, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-30747 Filed 12-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P