[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66255-66260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31980]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-822]


Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From The People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On August 13, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results 
of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
helical spring lock washers (HSLWs) from the People's Republic of China 
(PRC) (61 FR 42000). This review covers shipments of this merchandise 
to the United States during the period October 1, 1994 through 
September 30, 1995. We gave interested parties an opportunity to 
comment on our preliminary results. Based upon our analysis of the 
comments received we have changed the results from those presented in 
the preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery, 
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.

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping 
duty order on HSLWs from the PRC on October 19, 1993 (58 FR 53914). On 
October 5, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register (60 
FR 52149) a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on HSLWs from the PRC covering the period 
October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995.
    On October 30 and 31, 1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), 
petitioner, Shakeproof Industrial Products of Illinois Works, and 
Zhejiang Wanxin Group, Co., Ltd, (ZWG), respectively, requested that we 
conduct an administrative review of ZWG, also known as Hangzhou Spring 
Washer Plant. We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping 
duty administrative review on November 16, 1995 (60 FR 57573).
    On August 13, 1996, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of this review of the antidumping duty 
order on HSLWs from the PRC (61 FR 42000). We held a hearing on 
September 30, 1996. The Department has now completed this review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise stated, all citations to the 
Department's regulations are references to the regulations as amended 
by the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11, 
1995 (60 FR 25130).

[[Page 66256]]

Scope of Review

    The products covered by this review are HSLWs of carbon steel, of 
carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non heat-
treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are 
designed to: (1) function as a spring to compensate for developed 
looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly; (2) 
distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and (3) 
provide a hardened bearing surface. The scope does not include internal 
or external tooth washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made 
of other metals, such as copper.
    HSLWs subject to this review are currently classifiable under 
subheading 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this 
proceeding is dispositive.
    This review covers one exporter of HSLWs from the PRC, ZWG, and the 
period October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received case and rebuttal briefs from 
petitioner, ZWG, and the American Association of Fastener Importers 
(AAFI), an interested party. At the request of the petitioner, we held 
a public hearing on September 30, 1996.
    Comment 1: ZWG asserts that the Department may not value wire rod 
based on Indian import prices from countries that the Department has 
found to be dumping or subsidizing exports. ZWG states that, for more 
than 80 percent of the steel bar and rod covered by the Indian import 
statistics, the Department has made dumping or subsidy findings. ZWG 
contends that the antidumping statute and court rulings prohibit the 
use of dumped or subsidized prices to value factors of production. ZWG 
cites the House Report to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 
1988, with respect to factors of production: ``In valuing such factors, 
Commerce shall avoid using any prices which it has reason to believe or 
suspect may be dumped or subsidized prices * * *.'' ZWG contends that 
the Department has expressly acknowledged the House Report in Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron 
Construction Castings From the People's Republic of China (Construction 
Castings), 57 FR 10644 (March 27, 1992), citing Tehnoimportexport, UCF 
America Inc. v. U.S., 783 F. Supp. 1401 (CIT 1991) (Tehnoimportexport). 
ZWG states that the Court of International Trade (CIT), in 
Tehnoimportexport, interpreted the House Report's ``believe or 
suspect'' standard to mean that the Department correctly rejected all 
Yugoslavian steel export prices, where the Department had found non-
product specific export subsidies for Yugoslavian steel. ZWG argues 
that the CIT, quoting China National Metal & Minerals Import & Export 
Corp. v. United States, 674 F. Supp. 1482 (CIT 1987), pointed out that 
``the main consideration is the unreliability of the price information 
due to the unknown dumping margin if any.'' ZWG asserts that the 
``believe or suspect'' standard requires the Department to reject any 
export price to any country if the Department has found the export 
price to be dumped or subsidized in the United States.
    ZWG argues that the Department has an established practice not to 
value factors based on export prices from countries that are subject to 
dumping or subsidy findings in the United States. ZWG asserts that, in 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 
Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China, 58 FR 
48833 (September 20, 1993) (Lock Washers), the Department acknowledged 
the practice of not considering pricing information from any country 
found by the Department to be selling dumped or subsidized merchandise. 
ZWG contends that the Department reiterated this policy in Partial 
Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers From the People's Republic 
of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995) (Drawer Slides). ZWG contends that 
the Department rejected the use of actual prices of cold-rolled steel 
imported from Korea on the grounds that the Korean steel is subject to 
dumping and subsidy findings in the United States. ZWG argues that the 
Department reached this determination despite the fact that there had 
never been any finding that Korean steel imported into China was dumped 
or subsidized.
    ZWG argues that the Department ignored its established practice in 
the preliminary results of this review and the simultaneously announced 
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 41994 
(August 13, 1996) (Lock Washers Review), despite the fact that almost 
all of the prices originated from countries found to be subsidizing 
exports. ZWG asserts that the Department justified its decision by 
stating that there is no evidence that India has found dumping or 
subsidizing of steel imports into India. ZWG contends that this 
reasoning contradicts the established practice that requires the 
Department to reject import prices for products for which the United 
States has made dumping or subsidy findings, whether or not the 
importing country has made such findings. ZWG argues that the 
Department does not require a finding of dumping or subsidization in 
the importing country to fulfill the ``reason to believe or suspect'' 
standard, and that a finding by the Department fulfills that standard; 
therefore, the Department's findings with respect to bar and rod 
preclude the use of surrogate values from certain exporting countries.
    ZWG argues that the Department, therefore, may not use the Indian 
import statistics for valuing steel wire rod, to the extent that the 
United States has made dumping and subsidy findings from the country 
that exported the wire rod to India. ZWG argues that, if the Department 
decides to use Indian import statistics to value wire rod, the 
Department must exclude Indian imports of bar and rod that the 
Department has found to be dumped or subsidized. Therefore, ZWG argues 
the Department may use Indian import statistics of bar and rod only 
from Indonesia, Italy, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Thailand.
    AAFI states that, although it supports the Department's preliminary 
determination in general, it believes the Department should not have 
based its surrogate material cost for steel wire rod on Indian import 
statistics. AAFI argues that the Department cannot use Indian import 
statistics from countries the Department previously determined to be 
shipping dumped or subsidized product. AAFI states that the fact that 
steel wire rod has been subject to dumping determinations raises a 
doubt as to the accuracy of the data.
    Petitioner argues that the fact that certain third countries are 
subject to a U.S. antidumping or countervailing duty order does not 
preclude the Department from using data related to Indian imports from 
those countries. Petitioner argues that, absent evidence which shows 
that exports of the merchandise to the surrogate country are themselves 
dumped or subsidized, the Department should use that data. Petitioner 
points out that ZWG made the same argument in the Lock Washers Review 
and no new arguments have been made in this review. Petitioner notes 
that the Department rejected ZWG's argument in the first review and

[[Page 66257]]

argues that, contrary to ZWG's assertions, the prior administrative 
decisions and court case cited by ZWG support the Department's position 
in the first review. For example, in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Romania; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 1169 (January 11, 1991) 
(TRBs From Romania), the Department rejected the use of Yugoslavian 
steel prices (domestic and export) because of the prevalence of dumping 
and countervailing duty cases directly involving Yugoslavian steel, and 
instead, the Department used Yugoslavian import prices for steel. 
Petitioner argues that, in the Lock Washers less than fair value (LTFV) 
investigation, the Department rejected the argument that Indian import 
data from countries involved in ``dumping'' should be disregarded and 
used Indian import prices from countries subject to antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders. Petitioner argues that, in Drawer Slides, 
the Department rejected actual Chinese import prices from Korea, 
stating that ``cold-rolled steel imports from Korea are subject to U.S. 
antidumping and countervailing duties orders and therefore the prices 
are likely to be unsuitable for use in this context.''
    Petitioner argues that ZWG cited Tehnoimportexport for the 
proposition that the Department should reject the Indian import prices 
as it rejected the use of export Yugoslavian steel prices. Petitioner 
quotes the CIT in that case:

    Commerce's decision in this case, however, was based on final 
antidumping determinations upon comparable merchandise and two final 
countervailing duty determinations in which Commerce determined that 
countervailable, non-product specific export subsidies were bestowed 
upon exports of steel products. Their decision was also based on 
several European Community (EC) cases. In total, there was 
substantial evidence to allow a reasonable mind to conclude that 
there were dumping and subsidies favoring Yugoslavian steel exports.

Tehnoimportexport, 16 CIT 13, 18 (1992).
    Petitioner asserts that there is no statutory or Department 
regulatory provision that requires the rejection of surrogate import 
prices based on a ``reason to believe or suspect'' standard. 
Furthermore, petitioner argues that ZWG has failed to cite any case to 
support its contention that the Department has an established ``reason 
to believe or suspect'' practice for rejecting import prices in 
determining a surrogate value. Petitioner argues that the legislative 
intent of the 1988 statutory amendments to which ZWG refers do not 
support the rigid approach ZWG proposes. Petitioner argues that the 
Department would soon have to make a company-by-company analysis and a 
review of all third country (not just surrogate country) antidumping 
and countervailing duty actions if the Department were to accept ZWG's 
position. Petitioner argues that Congress did not expect the Department 
to conduct such special investigations. Rather, petitioner argues, the 
intent of Congress was to afford relief to a U.S. industry and to 
prohibit the use by the Department of prices that are demonstrably 
``low'' as a consequence of dumping or subsidization. Petitioner 
asserts that the standard that the Department should use is whether the 
Indian imports in fact benefit from dumped or subsidized prices. 
Petitioner argues that, in determining the surrogate for 1060 steel 
wire rod in India, the Department is trying to determine the price in 
India, and that import prices are simply a guide.
    Petitioner asserts that, if prices of Indian steel imports reflect 
dumping and subsidization, those prices should be low, not high. 
Petitioner argues that the opposite is the case here. Petitioner argues 
that, if India has imposed antidumping or countervailing duty measures 
against steel imports, the decision would be different.
    Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. The facts do not 
establish a reasonable basis to ``believe or suspect'' the imports of 
wire rod into India are dumped or subsidized. The Indian government has 
not determined that steel imports into India are dumped or subsidized. 
As stated in the Lock Washers Review, the fact that the Department has 
made determinations of sales at less than fair value into the United 
States is not a sufficient basis for a belief or suspicion that those 
countries also dumped imports into India. Further, there is no evidence 
that any general subsidies applied to production and exports of carbon 
steel wire rod to India.
    We disagree with ZWG that the use of the Indian import prices from 
countries subject to U.S. antidumping and countervailing determinations 
is inconsistent with prior Department decisions. In Lock Washers, 
although parties argued against using import prices into India from 
countries found to be selling at prices below fair market value, the 
Department did use Indian import statistics for steel wire rod from 
countries subject to antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations. In TRBs From Romania, the Department rejected the use 
of Yugoslavian steel prices and used import steel prices into 
Yugoslavia. As noted by petitioner, the CIT upheld the decision not to 
use Yugoslavian export prices in Tehnoimportexport.
    Although the basis for the rejection in Drawer Slides of the import 
prices from Korea, a country subject to an antidumping order by the 
United States, is not fully discussed in the Notice of the final 
determination, we do not find that there is a per se prohibition on 
using third country import statistics as surrogate values when those 
statistics include imports from countries subject to U.S. antidumping 
orders. Rather, the preference is to use the most accurate surrogate 
data available in the circumstances of a particular case. For this 
reason, we decline to follow Drawer Slides in this review.
    We also disagree with ZWG's claim that the legislative history of 
the Omnibus Trade Act of 1988 compels us to reject the Indian import 
statistics. As stated in the House Report, Congress did not intend for 
the Department to conduct a formal investigation to insure that the 
prices it uses in valuing factors of production are not dumped or 
subsidized. As stated above, there are insufficient grounds to 
``believe or suspect'' that the prices of wire rod in the Indian import 
statistics are dumped and subsidized and should not be used as a 
surrogate to value carbon steel wire rod.
    Comment 2: ZWG argues that the Department should value steel using 
the domestic Indian prices quoted from the Steel Scenario (a monthly 
journal, published by Sparke Steel & Economy Research Centre Pvt. 
Ltd.). ZWG argues that it is the Department's practice to give priority 
to surrogate values that are (a) contemporaneous with the period of 
investigation; (b) product-specific; and (c) tax-exclusive. ZWG asserts 
that the Steel Scenario price information is more contemporaneous with 
the period of review (POR) than are the Indian import statistics used 
in the preliminary results. ZWG argues that more than half the Indian 
import statistics used in the preliminary results are from before this 
period of review. ZWG also argues that the Steel Scenario prices are 
size-specific and, therefore, can be specific to ZWG's actual inputs. 
ZWG asserts that information is available to make the price data tax-
exclusive.
    AAFI asserts that the Department should use the most accurate input 
data on the record, which it believes to be the steel wire rod prices, 
submitted by ZWG, adjusted to remove excise duty and statutory levy. 
AAFI contends that the data submitted by ZWG is the only data which 
provides size-specific prices

[[Page 66258]]

that match the steel wire rod used by ZWG. AAFI further states that the 
basic principle of determining surrogate costs is to accurately 
estimate the costs of production of the good in the surrogate country, 
which includes using domestically sourced inputs. AAFI maintains that 
the data submitted by ZWG is based upon actual prices of steel wire rod 
in India and is a more accurate reflection of the price than import 
statistics, especially import statistics that are suspect.
    Petitioner argues that, as with the Steel Authority of India 
Limited (SAIL) data that ZWG proposed in the first review, the Steel 
Scenario data do not address the important issue of chemistry, while 
the Indian import statistics do. Petitioner argues that, with the 
exception of Drawer Slides, the Department has not used Indian domestic 
steel prices since the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. 
Petitioner also argues that the Department used Indian imports covering 
most of the period, and that the Indian imports are contemporaneous. 
Petitioner also argues that, in the overwhelming number of NME cases 
involving the People's Republic of China, the Department has used 
Indian import statistics.
    Department's Position: We disagree with ZWG. ZWG has not 
established that there is a stronger factual basis for using the Steel 
Scenario data than there is for using the import statistics. As stated 
in the first administrative review of this case, the scope of this 
review covers HSLWs made from stainless steel, carbon alloy steel, or 
carbon steel. The grade or chemistry of the steel is an important 
consideration, as evidenced by the range of HSLWs covered by the order. 
The chemistry of the steel determines the mechanical and physical 
properties of the steel, and, therefore, is the driving factor in 
determining the end use. Therefore, in this case, the grade of steel is 
a more important consideration for the Department than size when 
choosing between different PAPI sources. See Lock Washers Review. 
Furthermore, although the Steel Scenario data is more size-specific 
than the Indian import statistics, it is less grade-specific. See also, 
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 60 FR 48687 (September 
20, 1995). In addition, because the Indian import statistics cover the 
majority of the POR, we agree with petitioner that the Indian import 
statistics are contemporaneous. Therefore, we have continued to use the 
Indian import statistics to value steel wire rod.
    Comment 3: Petitioner asserts that the Department should determine 
a constructed value for HSLWs which entered the United States from 
October 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994 using the statutory minimum 
eight percent profit then in effect. Petitioner contends that the 
Department wrongly applied the provisions of the antidumping statutory 
amendment 19 U.S.C. sec. 1677b(c), which sets no minimum amounts for 
profits and selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses on 
reviews initiated after January 1, 1995. Petitioner argues that the 
Department's application of the statute in the preliminary results to 
entries between October 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994 has the effect of 
retroactively reducing the antidumping duties on entries of merchandise 
which occurred before the effective date of the amendments. 
Petitioner's position is that as a tax measure, retroactive application 
of the antidumping statute to the disadvantage of a party affected by 
those changes is unlawful. Petitioner argues that the remedy provided 
by the Congress in the form of antidumping duties cannot be changed 
retroactively for entries of the subject merchandise on which the 
liability for the antidumping duties has already been attached.
    ZWG argues that the Department should apply the current statute to 
every U.S. sale covered in this review for purposes of both the future 
deposit rate determination and the dumping duty assessment. ZWG 
contends that petitioner's argument, current statute, and legislative 
history provide no grounds for allowing the Department to apply the law 
that existed prior to the URAA to this review. ZWG states that the URAA 
amendments must apply to antidumping administrative reviews initiated 
on or after January 1, 1995 and the Department must conduct this review 
in accordance with the current provisions for calculating profit and 
SG&A expenses.
    Department's Position: We agree with ZWG. As stated in section 
291(2) of the URAA, the URAA amendments apply to antidumping 
administrative reviews initiated on or after January 1, 1995. We 
disagree with petitioner that application of the URAA amendments to 
entries prior to January 1, 1995 is an improper retroactive application 
of the antidumping law. The entries between October 1, 1994 and 
December 31, 1994 were made subject to estimated antidumping duty 
deposits. The antidumping duties assessed may increase or decrease at 
the time of assessment pursuant to an administrative review conducted 
in accordance with the then current statute. Since this review was 
initiated on November 16, 1995, the current antidumping statute, which 
was in effect at the time of initiation, applies. Therefore, we are 
calculating profit and SG&A for all entries covered by this review in 
accordance with the provisions of the current antidumping statute.
    Comment 4: Petitioner asserts that, to value the steel input 
factor, the Department should consider from the Indian import 
statistics three HTS subcategories of steel, 7213.41, 7213.49, and 
7213.50, instead of selecting only the one category, 7213.50, which 
specifically includes ``1060'' steel. Petitioner contends that, while 
it agrees that the Department should use data which is most specific 
for valuing factor inputs, it believes it is necessary to understand 
that with the tolerances allowed for ``1060'' steel, it is possible 
that the steel could be properly classified under one of the other 
categories. Petitioner states that the Department used three steel 
categories in the antidumping investigation of HSLWs, but concluded in 
the final results of the first administrative review that it was no 
longer appropriate to use all three subcategories.
    ZWG argues that the Department may not use Indian import statistics 
classified under HTS 7213.41 and 7213.49 because, it claims, these two 
subcategories are irrelevant to the wire rod it uses. ZWG claims to 
have demonstrated its use of steel wire rod with 0.6 carbon content 
during this POR. ZWG argues that the Department properly determined in 
the first administrative review and the preliminary results of this 
review that HTS 7213.41 and 7213.49 are not relevant to the carbon 
steel wire rod used by ZWG.
    AAFI argues that the Department should reject petitioner's claim 
that three HTS steel wire rod categories should be used to determine 
surrogate steel prices. AAFI claims that HTS 7213.50 most accurately 
describes the raw material actually used by ZWG in HSLW production.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner that in this 
review we must use the three HTS subcategories used in the LTFV 
investigation. As in the first administrative review, the 1060 wire rod 
used by ZWG is a high carbon steel. Although tolerance levels could 
allow a carbon content slightly below 0.6 percent, 1060 grade steel 
wire rod imports nevertheless properly would be classified under HTS 
7213.50. The HTS subcategories 7312.41 and 7213.49 suggested by the 
petitioner contain wire

[[Page 66259]]

rod with a carbon content between .25 and .59 percent carbon. 
Therefore, for these final results we continued to use the HTS 
subcategory which contains 1060 steel wire rod. See Lock Washers 
Review.
    Comment 5: Petitioner asserts that the Department should use truck 
rates from the August 1993 embassy cable for truck freight values 
instead of truck rates derived from The Times of India. Petitioner 
argues that the Department's use of the embassy cable, also used in the 
final determination of the first review, would maintain consistency 
from one review to the next for the same subject merchandise. 
Petitioner contends that such consistency promotes predictability and 
provides a strong basis for the selection of particular value sources. 
Petitioner argues that the Department should continue to use the cable 
data unless more contemporaneous and reliable data is provided. 
Petitioner further asserts that the Department stated no reason for 
changing sources. Additionally, petitioner claims that the truck rates 
published in The Times of India, which were taken from a government 
study, may have been selectively reviewed, and were not self-verifying. 
Petitioner considers the actual government study to be a more reliable 
source than the newspaper article and, therefore the government study 
should have been used by the Department.
    ZWG supports the Department's use of the truck rates reported in 
The Times of India. ZWG claims that the rates from The Times of India, 
showing truck freight rates as of April 1994, are accurate and more 
contemporaneous than the data in the embassy cable. ZWG states that 
rates from The Times of India are publicly available published 
information, whereas the cable became public only when the Department 
made it publicly available. ZWG argues that the Department consistently 
determined that the data in The Times of India article is preferable to 
the embassy cable for valuing truck freight rates in cases involving 
products from the PRC, stating that the Department has used the data 
from The Times of India since the investigation of honey from the PRC. 
ZWG also references the Department's use of truck freight rate data 
from The Times of India in ``Factors Valuation: Final Determination in 
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bicycles from the People's 
Republic of China'' (Bicycles), dated April 22, 1996. ZWG claims that 
in Bicycles, the Department rejected the respondent's request for the 
use of the embassy cable and used data from The Times of India. ZWG 
also notes that in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts thereof, Finished 
and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke 
Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 61 FR 40610 (August 5, 1996), that the 
Department reiterated that the truck freight rates in The Times of 
India are ``the most recent publicly available published source.'' 
Referring to Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442 (Fed. 
Cir. 1994) (Lasko), ZWG also claims that the Department has never 
announced a rule that it should adopt values from the first review 
merely to be consistent.
    AAFI alleges that petitioner's argument for use of the embassy 
cable for truck freight valuation is without merit because the embassy 
cable is not publicly available information. AAFI contends that the 
Department should reject petitioner's argument that The Times of India 
article should not be used because it is ``unverifiable.'' AAFI 
maintains that it is not clear why petitioner alleges publicly 
available published information from The Times of India not to be 
'self-verifying,'' while petitioner does believe that the private 
embassy cable is 'self-verifying.''
    Department's Position: We agree with ZWG and AAFI. The Times of 
India article provides the most contemporaneous values for trucking 
rates. It is the Department's practice to use surrogate values from 
publicly available sources which are the most contemporaneous with the 
period of review. While we used the August 1993 embassy cable in the 
previous review, the Department's goal is to value non-market economy 
factors in as fair and accurate a manner as possible. As the Federal 
Circuit expressed in Lasko, the antidumping statute ``simply does not 
say--anywhere--that the factors of production must be ascertained in a 
single fashion.'' Also, as the Department stated in the Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the Republic of Hungary, 
56 FR 41819 (August 23, 1991), 'simply because a particular source was 
used in previous reviews of this case does not preclude the Department 
from relying on alternate sources if the circumstances necessitate a 
change.'' Therefore, we are continuing to use the Times of India 
trucking rates as the best available surrogate information for this 
review.
    Comment 6: Petitioner asserts that the freight charges associated 
with the movement of chemicals were not included in the calculations. 
Petitioner requests that the Department review the calculations to 
ensure that freight charges for chemicals were included.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner. We have 
reviewed our calculations and have found that the freight charges are 
included in the calculation of normal value.
    Comments 7: Petitioner objects to the Department's use of a weight-
based rate to determine marine insurance premiums and contends that the 
Department should use shipment value to determine the premiums. 
Petitioner supports this argument by citing page 22 of the verification 
report, which states that marine insurance was provided by a PRC state-
owned company, using a premium based on the value of the shipment.
    ZWG agrees with the Department's determination that marine 
insurance premiums should be based upon weight. ZWG argues that no 
value-based marine insurance data are publicly available through other 
antidumping proceedings, nor were any submitted by petitioner.
    Department's Position: We agree with ZWG. There was no appropriate 
marine insurance surrogate based on value submitted for or available in 
this review. Therefore, we are continuing to value marine insurance 
based on weight of the subject merchandise.
    Additional Change for the Final Results
    For these final results we have recalculated labor using data from 
the Yearbook of Labor Statistics (YLS). As we stated in the Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the 
People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996), the Economic 
Intelligence Unit report Investing, Licensing & Trading Conditions 
Abroad: India (IL&T), released November 1995, reports estimates based 
not on actual wage rates, but on rates stipulated in various Indian 
laws. Therefore, we have not used IL&T data for the final results. The 
YLS provides wage rates on an industry-specific basis. We used the 
daily wage rate specified for SIC code 381, ``manufacture of fabricated 
metal products, except machinery and equipment,'' because the 
description of the various industries this category covers was the best 
match for the HSLW industry. Having found the IL&T data to be an 
inappropriate source for wage rates, it would be inappropriate to use 
the IL&T data to differentiate among skill levels. Because the YLS 
provides wage rates from 1990, we inflated the data for the review 
period, using the consumer price index, published in the International 
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.

[[Page 66260]]

Final Results of Reviews

    As a result of the comments received, we have changed the results 
from those presented in our preliminary results of review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
         Manufacturer/exporter               Time period       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd.........    10/01/94-09/30/95       38.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and normal value may vary from 
the percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of these final results for all shipments of HSLWs from the 
PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 
(1) for ZWG, which has a separate rate, and all ZWG exports through 
market-economy trading companies, the cash deposit rate will be the 
company-specific rate established in these final results of review; (2) 
for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 128.63 
percent, the PRC rate established in the LTFV investigation of this 
case; and (3) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the 
PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC 
supplier of that exporter.
    These deposit rates 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: December 10, 1996.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-31980 Filed 12-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P