[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