[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64354-64359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31938]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[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 six 
manufacturers/exporters of subject merchandise, the Department of 
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on steel wire rope from Korea. The review covers 15 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of 
review is March 1, 1996, through February 28, 1997.
    We have preliminarily found that, for certain exporters, sales of 
subject merchandise have been made below normal value. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties based on the difference between the export price and 
the normal value. Also, if these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of this administrative review, we intend to revoke the 
antidumping duty order with respect to Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd., Ssang 
Yong Cable Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Sung Jin Company, based on three 
years of sales at not less than NV. See Intent to Revoke section of 
this notice.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit case briefs in this proceeding should 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 5, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sunkyu Kim, at (202) 482-2613, or John 
Brinkmann, at (202) 482-5288; Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230.

[[Page 64355]]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 the 
regulations at 19 CFR Part 353 (1997).

Case History

    On March 26, 1993, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on steel 
wire rope from the Republic of Korea. See 58 FR 16397. On March 7, 
1997, the Department published a notice providing an opportunity to 
request an administrative review of this antidumping duty order for the 
period March 1, 1996, through February 28, 1997. See 62 FR 10521. On 
March 31, 1997, the petitioner requested an administrative review of 15 
manufacturers/exporters of steel wire rope from Korea. On March 31, 
1997, each of the following companies also requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of their sales: Chung Woo 
Rope Co., Ltd. (Chung Woo), Chun Kee Steel Wire Rope Co., Ltd. (Chun 
Kee), Kumho Wire Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Kumho), Manho Rope 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Manho), Ssang Yong Cable Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd. (Ssang Yong) and Sun Jin Company (Sung Jin). In addition, Chung 
Woo, Kumho, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin each requested that the Department 
revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to their merchandise 
(see Intent to Revoke section of the notice below). We published a 
notice of initiation of this administrative review on April 24, 1997. 
See 62 FR 19988.
    On April 2, 1997, the Department revoked the antidumping duty order 
on steel wire rope from the Republic of Korea with respect to Manho and 
Chun Kee, effective for entries of subject merchandise entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse on or after March 1, 1996 (see Steel Wire Rope 
from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 
62 FR 17171 (April 9, 1997) (``Steel Wire Rope Third Review Final'')). 
Because the current review covers shipments of merchandise from the 
Republic of Korea during the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 
1997, on May 7, 1997, the Department terminated the review with respect 
to Manho and Chun Kee. (See Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea: 
Notice of Termination In Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 26776 (May 15, 1997)).
    On April 28, 1997, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to the 13 
remaining respondents. The Department received responses from Chung 
Woo, Kumho, Sung Jin and Ssang Yong in July 1997. The Department issued 
supplemental questionnaires to these companies on August 11, 1997. 
Responses to these questionnaires were received on August 25, 1997.
    Chung Woo, Kumho, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin each requested revocation 
of the order with respect to their merchandise. The petitioner, on 
August 21, 1997, also requested verification of the responses of Chung 
Woo, Kumho, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin on grounds that each company had 
requested revocation of the order. Accordingly, the Department 
scheduled a verification of each company's response pursuant to section 
782(i) of the Act. On September 2, 1997, Kumho submitted a letter 
requesting that the Department postpone the scheduled verification of 
its responses. According to Kumho, the company entered bankruptcy 
proceedings on August 20, 1997, and therefore was not able to 
participate in the verification during the scheduled time in September 
1997. Subsequently, on October 10, 1997, Kumho submitted a letter 
withdrawing its request for revocation of the antidumping duty order. 
In that letter, Kumho stated that due to bankruptcy proceedings, it was 
impossible for the company to participate in a verification. Kumho also 
included in its submission certain documentation supporting its claim 
that the company is in bankruptcy. Due to this unusual circumstance, 
Kumho requested that the verification be cancelled on the grounds that 
its withdrawal of the request for revocation made verification 
unnecessary.
    We would not have verified Kumho's responses in this review if 
Kumho had not requested revocation of the order with respect to its 
merchandise. The Department verified Kumho's responses in the preceding 
1995/96 administrative review. In addition, the reason the petitioner 
gave for its request for verification of Kumho's responses was the 
company's request for revocation. Furthermore, the documentation Kumho 
provided to the Department sufficiently establishes its claim that the 
company is in bankruptcy. Therefore, on grounds that Kumho has 
withdrawn its request for revocation, we canceled the verification of 
the company. For the preliminary results, we are calculating a dumping 
margin based on Kumho's home market and U.S. sales databases submitted 
on July 9, 1997.

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, the 
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Non-Responding Companies

    For two respondents, Jinyang Wire Rope Inc. (Jinyang) and Yeonsin 
Metal (Yeonsin), while we have confirmed that the questionnaires were 
delivered to the companies, we did not receive responses to our 
questionnaire. Accordingly, we are assigning to these companies a 
margin based on adverse facts available. See Use of Facts Available 
section of the notice below.
    For four other respondents, Boo Kook Corporation (Boo Kook), Dong-
Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Dong-Il), Hanboo Wire Rope (Hanboo) 
and Seo Jin Wire Rope (Seo Jin), the questionnaires were undelivered 
and returned to the Department. Thereafter, we received information 
from the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, that two of these 
companies, Hanboo and Seo Jin, 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).
    With respect to Boo Kook and Dong-Il, the U.S. Embassy informed us 
of their new addresses. Subsequently on July 7, 1997, we sent the 
questionnaires to these two companies at their new addresses. While we 
have confirmed that the questionnaires were delivered to both 
companies, we did not receive responses to our questionnaire.

[[Page 64356]]

Accordingly, we are assigning these two companies a margin based on 
adverse facts available. See Use of Facts Available section of this 
notice below.

Non-Shippers

    Two companies, Myung Jin Co., Ltd. and TSK Korea Co., Ltd. notified 
us that they did not have shipments of subject merchandise during the 
period of review (POR), and we have confirmed this with the United 
States Customs Service.

Use of Facts Available

    We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(a) of 
the Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for Boo Kook, 
Dong-Il, Jinyang, Yeon Sin, and Sungsan Special Steel Processing, Inc. 
(Sungsan). With respect to Boo Kook, Dong-Il, Jinyang, and Yeon Sin, we 
find that these firms have not provided ``information that has been 
requested by the administering authority'' because they did not respond 
to our antidumping questionnaire. 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 and, thus, 
by not acting to the best of their ability.
    Where the Department must resort to facts available because a 
respondent failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the use of an inference adverse to the 
interests of that respondent in selecting from among 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 in the LTFV investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
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 rejected 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).
    For the previous three administrative reviews of this proceeding, 
we have used the highest rate from any prior segment of the proceeding, 
1.51 percent, as best information or facts available. In our final 
results of the 1995/96 administrative review, however, we stated that 
this rate may no longer have the desired effect of inducing cooperation 
of potential respondents. See SAA at 868. Therefore, we stated that we 
would collect information bearing on this issue to permit us to make a 
determination whether the 1.51 percent rate is sufficiently adverse to 
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule and, if necessary, 
adjust the rate accordingly. See Steel Wire Rope Third Review Final, 62 
FR 17171, 17176. For purposes of these preliminary results, we continue 
to use 1.51 percent as adverse facts available. However, we are 
reconsidering the appropriateness of this rate as an adverse facts 
available rate and intend to adjust this rate for the final results, if 
necessary. To this end, we invite interested parties in this proceeding 
to submit comments or information concerning this issue. In particular, 
we invite interested parties to supply specific data that the 
Department could consider if its chooses to establish an adverse facts 
available rate that is more appropriate for uncooperative respondents. 
Moreover, we invite interested parties to comment on the methods and 
sources by which the Department could satisfy its statutory requirement 
to corroborate from independent sources any proposed adverse facts 
available rate.
    With respect to Sungsan, we find the use of facts available is 
appropriate. Sungsan submitted a letter in response to our 
questionnaire on June 23, 1997. In the letter, Sungsan stated that the 
company does not produce steel wire rope. However, the company further 
stated that it purchased steel wire rope from other companies in Korea 
and did export a small quantity of the merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. Subsequently, on November 4, 1997, the Department sent 
a letter to Sungsan requesting additional information concerning the 
company's shipment of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR. Specifically, we requested Sungsan to identify the suppliers 
from which the company purchased the subject merchandise that was 
shipped to the United States during the POR and to confirm that the 
suppliers are not affiliated with Sungsan. Additionally, we requested 
that Sungsan clarify whether each of the suppliers had knowledge or 
reason to know that the products it sold to Sungsan were destined for 
the United States at the time of sale.
    On November 14, 1997, Sungsan submitted its response to the 
Department's request for additional information. According to Sungsan, 
the supplier from which the company purchased the subject merchandise 
that it shipped to the United States during the POR is not affiliated 
with Sungsan. Furthermore, Sungsan stated that the supplier did not 
have knowledge that the merchandise it sold to Sungsan was destined for 
the United States at the time of sale. Based on this information, we 
conclude that Sungsan's sale to the United States during the POR is 
covered by this review and response to our questionnaire was required. 
Because Sungsan did not provide a full response to our questionnaire, 
we find that the application of a facts available rate is appropriate 
for Sungsan. However, in this case, the Department failed to notify 
Sungsan in a timely manner of the deficiencies in its response to our 
questionnaire. Accordingly, as facts available, we are assigning the 
respondent the ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV investigation, 1.51 
percent, which has been used in prior segments of this proceeding as 
facts available.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by Chung Woo, Sung Jin and Ssang Yong. We used standard 
verification procedures, including on-site inspection

[[Page 64357]]

of the manufacturer's facilities and examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the 
verification reports placed in the case file.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, the Department used export price 
(EP) as defined in section 772(a) of the Act for each of the 
respondents, 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 made company-specific adjustments as follows:

Chung Woo

    We calculated EP based on packed, c.i.f. and c&f prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine 
insurance, terminal handling charges, wharfage expenses, bill of lading 
issuing fees, export license fees, and container taxes, in accordance 
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    The merchandise involved in certain U.S. and home market sales 
reported by Chung Woo was produced by unaffiliated suppliers. We 
included these sales by Chung Woo in our analysis because we determined 
that the suppliers did not know at the time of sale that the subject 
merchandise was to be exported to the United States. We compared these 
U.S. sales to the appropriate home market sales of merchandise produced 
by the same suppliers and sold by Chung Woo.

Kumho

    We calculated EP based on packed, c.i.f. and c&f prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine 
insurance, terminal handling charges, wharfage expenses, bill of lading 
issuing fees, container taxes, and container freight station expenses, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    The merchandise involved in certain U.S. and home market sales 
reported by Kumho was produced by unaffiliated suppliers. We included 
these sales by Kumho in our analysis because we determined that the 
suppliers did not know at the time of sale that the subject merchandise 
was to be exported to the United States. We compared these U.S. sales 
to the appropriate home market sales of merchandise produced by the 
same suppliers and sold by Kumho.

Ssang Yong

    We calculated EP based on packed, c.i.f. and c&f prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for 
domestic inland freight, brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine 
insurance and containerization expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Sung Jin

    We calculated EP based on packed, delivered to Korean port prices 
to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United 
States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price 
for domestic inland freight and brokerage and handling expenses, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    Consistent with our practice in the previous review, we did not 
make any duty drawback adjustments claimed by Chung Woo, Kumho, or 
Ssang Yong 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 (see Steel Wire Rope 
From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in 
Part, 61 FR 64058, 64059 (December 3, 1996)). Sung Jin did not claim 
any duty drawback adjustments for its sales to the United States.
    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, 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 its sales in the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based normal value (NV) on the 
prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption 
in the exporting country.
    For all respondents, 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 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 made company-specific adjustments as follows:

Chung Woo

    We calculated NV based on ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for 
movement expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 
addition, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
353.56, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments to NV. Specifically, 
we deducted home market credit expenses and, where appropriate, added 
U.S. postage fees, U.S. letter of credit fees, U.S. bank charges, and 
U.S. credit expenses.

Kumho

    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for movement expenses 
consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In addition, pursuant 
to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56, we made 
circumstance-of-sale adjustments to NV. Specifically, we deducted home 
market credit expenses and, where appropriate, added U.S. postage fees, 
U.S. letter of credit fees, U.S. bank charges, U.S. credit expenses and 
export recommendation fees.

Ssang Yong

    We calculated NV based on f.o.b. or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for 
movement expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 
addition, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
353.56, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments to NV. Specifically, 
we deducted home market credit expenses and, where appropriate, added 
U.S.

[[Page 64358]]

postage fees, U.S. letter of credit fees, U.S. bank charges, and U.S. 
credit expenses. 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.
    While Ssang Yong made sales of merchandise produced by unaffiliated 
suppliers in the home market, it did not sell in the United States 
merchandise produced by unaffiliated suppliers. Accordingly, we have 
excluded those home market sales of merchandise produced by 
unaffiliated suppliers from our analysis.

Sung Jin

    We calculated NV based on ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for 
movement expenses consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. In 
addition, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
353.56, we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments to NV. Specifically, 
we deducted home market credit expenses, and added U.S. credit 
expenses.
    For all companies, prices were reported net of value-added taxes 
(VAT) and, therefore, no adjustment for VAT was necessary. No other 
adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Intent To Revoke

    Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.25(b), revocation of the order with respect to their sales of the 
subject merchandise and submitted the certification required by 19 CFR 
353.25(b)(1).1 In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.25(a)(2)(iii), these companies 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 these companies, subsequent to revocation, sold 
merchandise at less than NV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  As discussed above in the Case History section of the 
notice, Kumho withdrew its request for revocation of the order on 
October 10, 1997. Accordingly, we do not intend to revoke the order 
with respect to merchandise produced and exported by Kumho in this 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the preliminary results in this review and the final 
results of the two preceding reviews (see Steel Wire Rope From the 
Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 55965 (October 30, 1996), and Steel Wire Rope Third 
Review Final), Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung Jin have preliminarily 
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 Chung Woo, Ssang Yong and Sung 
Jin sold the merchandise at not less than NV, and if we determine that 
it is not likely that these companies will sell the subject merchandise 
at less than NV in the future, we intend to revoke the order with 
respect to merchandise produced and exported by Chung Woo, Ssang Yong 
and Sung Jin.

Currency Conversion

    For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency 
conversions based on the official exchange rates published by the 
Federal Reserve in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales. Section 
773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate 
in effect on the date of sale of subject merchandise in order to 
convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the daily rate 
involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with the Department's 
practice, we have determined as a general matter that a fluctuation 
exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 
percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for 
the past 40 business days. When we determine that a fluctuation exists, 
we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period March 1, 1996, through February 
28, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boo Kook Corporation.......................................       * 1.51
Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd....................................         0.00
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.......................       * 1.51
Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc......................................         1.51
Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc.....................................       * 1.51
Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd..............................         0.04
Myung Jin Co...............................................     \1\ 1.51
Seo Jin Rope...............................................         1.51
Ssang Yong Cable Manufacturing Co., Ltd....................         0.02
Sung Jin Company...........................................         0.00
Sungsan Special Steel Processing...........................         1.51
TSK Korea Co., Ltd.........................................        (\2\)
Yeonsin Metal..............................................       * 1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Adverse Facts Available Rate.                                         
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant 
  segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.      
\2\ No shipments subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate
  from any segment of this proceeding.                                  

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within ten 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 Chung 
Woo, Kumho and Ssang Yong, 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 value of subject merchandise entered during the POR for 
each importer. In order to estimate the entered value, we subtracted 
international movement expenses from the gross sales value. For Sung 
Jin, we do not have the information to calculate an estimated entered 
value. Accordingly, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate 
by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales and 
dividing this amount by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold 
during the POR. 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

[[Page 64359]]

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 this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required 
for those companies whose weighted-average margin is zero or de 
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent); (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 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation 
(58 FR 16397, 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: December 1, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-31938 Filed 12-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P