[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64058-64062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30755]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-811]


Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke 
Antidumping Duty Order in Part

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

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

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner, the Committee of 
Domestic Steel Wire Rope & Specialty Cable Manufacturers, and by Manho 
Rope and Wire Ltd. (Manho) and Chun Kee Steel Wire Co. Ltd. (Chun Kee), 
respondent manufacturers/exporters of steel wire rope, the Department 
of Commerce (the

[[Page 64059]]

Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on steel wire rope from the Republic of Korea. The review 
covers 12 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. The review period is March 1, 1995, through February 28, 
1996 (the POR).
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between the export 
price (EP) and the normal value (NV). Also, if these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we 
intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Manho and 
Chun Kee based on three years of sales at not less than NV. See Intent 
to Revoke, infra. Interested parties are invited to comment on these 
preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding 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: 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 Rounds 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 regulation 
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    On March 26, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(58 FR 16398) the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from the 
Republic of Korea. On March 4, 1996, the Department published a notice 
of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' (61 FR 8238) of 
this antidumping duty order for the period March 1, 1995, through 
February 28, 1996. On April 1, 1996, the petitioner requested an 
administrative review of 12 manufacturers/exporters of steel wire rope 
from Korea. Manho and Chun Kee, each on April 1, 1996, also requested 
that the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of 
subject merchandise during the POR. We published a notice of initiation 
of administrative review on April 25, 1996 (61 FR 18379). The 
Department is now conducting this review in accordance with section 751 
of the Act.

Unlocated Companies

    We were unable to obtain addresses for Hanboo Wire Rope and Seo Jin 
Wire Rope and thereafter received confirmation from the U.S. embassy in 
Seoul, South Korea, that these companies were closed. In accordance 
with our practice with respect to companies to which we cannot send a 
questionnaire, we are assigning to these companies the ``All Others'' 
rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, which is 1.51 
percent. See Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-Made Fiber From 
Hong Kong; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 
FR 13926 (March 24, 1994).

Non-Shipper

    Myung Jin notified us that it did not have shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR, and we confirmed this with the United 
States Customs Service.

Verification

    In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we verified 
information provided by Chun Kee, Manho, Kumho Wire Rope Mfg., Co., 
Ltd. (Kumho), and Sungjin Company (Sung Jin), using standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public versions of the verification reports.

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.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, the Department used EP as defined 
in section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold 
to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of importation and 
the use of constructed export price was not indicated by the facts of 
record.
    We calculated EP based on ex-factory, f.o.b., c.i.f., c&f, or 
delivered to Korean port prices to unrelated purchasers in, or for 
exportation to, the United States. We adjusted these prices for billing 
adjustments, where applicable. We made adjustments, where applicable, 
for domestic brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, 
terminal handling charges, stevedoring charges, wharfage expenses, bill 
of lading issuing fees, export license fees, export insurance, domestic 
inland freight, containerization expenses and container taxes, 
container freight station charges, and shoring charges in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We also added duty drawback, 
where applicable, for Manho and Chun Kee, pursuant to section 
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. We did not make any duty drawback adjustments 
for Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd., Inc. (Chung Woo), Kumho, or Ssang Yong 
Steel Wire Co., Ltd., because they were unable to demonstrate a 
connection between payment of import duties and receipt of duty 
drawback on exports of steel wire rope, and 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, consistent with our practice in the previous review (see Steel 
Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 55965, 55968 (October 30, 1996) (Steel 
Wire Rope II Final)).
    No other adjustments to EP were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales, and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country does not permit a

[[Page 64060]]

proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of foreign like 
product each respondent sold in the exporting country was sufficient to 
permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to 
the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, because each 
company had sales in its home market which were greater than five 
percent of the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the 
foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the exporting 
country.
    We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such 
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to 
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unrelated 
customers.
    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) in 
the last completed review for Manho and Chun Kee, we had reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign product under 
consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been 
made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 
of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we 
initiated COP investigations of sales by Manho and Chun Kee in the home 
market.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental 
to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for 
shipment. We relied on the home market sales and COP information 
provided by Manho and Chun Kee in their questionnaire responses.
    After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of steel 
wire rope were made at prices below COP within an extended period of 
time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices permit recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-
specific COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable 
movement charges, rebates, and direct selling expenses.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of 
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than COP, we 
did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial 
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a 
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we 
disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined that the below-
cost sales were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial 
quantities'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 
Act, and based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the 
POR we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were 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. 
Based on this test, we disregarded below cost sales with respect to 
Manho and Chun Kee.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales 
of the foreign like product. We compared EP sales to sales in the home 
market of identical or similar merchandise.
    We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first 
sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial 
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade and at the same level of 
trade as the EP, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. 
We made adjustments, where appropriate, for rebates. We increased home 
market price by the amount of U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act and reduced it by the amount of home 
market packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act. We adjusted for movement expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where 
applicable, for differences in the physical characteristics of 
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56, 
we made circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments to NV. We deducted home 
market credit expenses, inspection fees, warranty and servicing 
expenses and, where appropriate, added U.S. postage fees, U.S. letter 
of credit fees, U.S. bank charges, U.S. credit expenses, U.S. 
inspection fees, U.S. warranty and servicing expenses, and U.S. product 
liability insurance. Prices were reported net of value-added taxes 
(VAT) and, therefore, no adjustment for VAT was necessary.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as NV 
for those U.S. sales for which we could not determine the NV based on 
home market sales pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act either 
because there were no appropriate sales or because we disregarded 
below-cost sales pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. We calculated 
CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, as the sum of the 
cost of manufacturing (COM) of the product sold in the United States, 
home market SG&A expenses, home market profit, and U.S. packing 
expenses. The COM of the product sold in the United States is the sum 
of direct material, direct labor, and variable and fixed factory 
overhead expenses. For home market SG&A expenses and profit, we used 
the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in 
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country, 
in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, unless these actual 
data were not available. If these actual data were not available, we 
used the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in 
connection with the production and sale, for consumption in the foreign 
country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of 
products as the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the 
Act, we made COS adjustments to CV by deducting home market direct 
selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    We preliminarily determine, 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. and Yeon Sin Metal 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.

[[Page 64061]]

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 because the 
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense 
resulting in an unusually high margin).
    In this case, we have used the highest rate from any prior segment 
of the proceeding, 1.51 percent, as adverse facts available. This rate 
is the highest available rate and, to the best of our knowledge, there 
are no circumstances that indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available.

Intent To Revoke

    Chun Kee and Manho requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b), 
revocation of the order with respect to their sales of the merchandise 
in question and submitted the certification required by 19 CFR 
353.25(b)(1). In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), 
Chun Kee and Manho have agreed in writing to their immediate 
reinstatement in the order, as long as any producer or reseller is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR 
353.22(f) that Chun Kee and Manho, subsequent to revocation, sold 
merchandise at less than NV. Based on the preliminary results in this 
review and the two preceding reviews (see Steel Wire Rope From the 
Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 60 FR 63499 (December 11, 1995), and Steel Wire Rope II Final), 
Chun Kee and Manho have demonstrated three consecutive years of sales 
at not less than NV.
    Given the results of the two preceding reviews, if the final 
results of this review demonstrate that Chun Kee and Manho sold the 
merchandise at not less than NV, and if we determine that it is not 
likely that Chun Kee and Manho will sell the subject merchandise at 
less then NV in the future, we intend to revoke the order with respect 
to merchandise produced and exported by Chun Kee and Manho.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period March 1, 1995, through February 
28, 1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boo Kook Corporation.......................................         1.51
Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd........................         0.01
Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd....................................         0.24
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.......................         1.51
Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc......................................         1.51
Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd..............................         0.01
Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd.....................................         0.00
Myung Jin Co. \1\ 1.51.....................................             
Seo Jin Rope...............................................         1.51
Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd.............................         0.01
Sung Jin...................................................         0.03
Yeonsin Metal..............................................        1.51 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant 
  segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.      

    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. 
Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit 
with each argument: (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief 
summary of the arguments. 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 issue a notice of 
the final results of this administrative review, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments 
or at the hearing, within 120 days from the publication of these 
preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment 
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the 
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty 
assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to 
each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of subject 
merchandise sold to each of the respective importers. This specific 
rate calculated for each importer will be used for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on the relevant entries of subject merchandise 
during the POR.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of steel wire rope from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of 
administrative review (except that for companies whose weighted-average 
margins are less than 0.5 percent, i.e., are de minimis, no cash 
deposit will be required); (2) for merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in 
the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit 
will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final 
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter 
received an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 
in this review, the previous review, or the original 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 reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 1.51

[[Page 64062]]

percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation 
(58 FR 16398, March 26, 1993).
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of 
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during 
this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could 
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping 
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping 
duties.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 
353.22, and 19 CFR 353.25.

    Dated: November 26, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-30755 Filed 12-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P