[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53875-53877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26918]



[[Page 53875]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-583-810]


Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of 
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The review covers 18 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States 
for the period September 1, 1996, through August 31, 1997. The review 
indicates the existence of margins for all firms.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between export 
price and the NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each 
comment (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of their 
comment.

EFFECTIVE DATES: October 7, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner (AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office Four, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4195 or 482-3814, respectively.

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 of Commerce's 
(``the Department's'') regulations refer to the regulations codified at 
19 CFR part 351 (62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping 
duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). On 
September 26, 1997, the petitioner, Consolidated International 
Automotive, Inc. (``Consolidated''), requested that we conduct an 
administrative review for the period September 1, 1996, through August 
31, 1997. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 30, 1997 (62 FR 
58703), and sent questionnaire to the following firms: Anmax Industrial 
Co., Ltd. (``Anmax''), Buxton International Corporation (``Buxton''), 
Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co. (``Chu Fong''), Everspring Plastic Corp. 
(``Everspring''), Gingen Metal Corp. (``Gingen''), Goldwinate 
Associate, Inc. (``Goldwinate''), Gourmet Equipment (``Taiwan'') 
Corporation (Gourmet''), Hwan Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd. (``Hwan''), 
Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd. (``Kwan How''), Kwan Ta Enterprises Co. 
Ltd (``Kwan Ta''), Kuang Hong Industries, Ltd. (``Kuang''), Multigrand 
Industries Inc. (``Multigrand''), San Chien Electric Industrial Works, 
Ltd. (``San Chien''), San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd. (``San 
Shing''), Transcend International Co. (``Transcend''), Trade Union 
International Inc./Top Line (``Trade Union''), Uniauto, Inc. 
(``Uniauto'') and Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company, Inc 
(``Wing''). Gourmet, Anmax and Trade Union responded to the 
questionnaire.
    Questionnaire and were sent to Transcend, Kwan How, Kwan Ta, 
Everspring, Gingen, Goldwanate, and Kuang were returned as 
undeliverable. These firms will receive the ``all others'' rate 
established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, which was 
6.93 percent.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the this review are shipments of one-piece and 
two-piece chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, more than 
\11/16\ inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal 
(hex) size of at least \3/4\ inches (19.04 millimeters) but not more 
than one inch (25.4 mm), plus or minus \1/16\ of an inch (1.59 mm). The 
term ``unfinish'' refers to unplated and/or unassembled chrome-plated 
lug nuts. The subject merchandise is used for securing wheels to cars, 
vans, trucks, utility vehicles, and trailers. Zinc-plated lug nuts, 
finished, or unfinished, and stainless-steel capped lug nuts are not in 
the scope of this review. Chrome-plated lock nuts are also not in the 
scope of this review.
    During the period of review (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were 
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading 
7318.16.00.00. Although the HTS subheading is provided for convience 
and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Because the following firms did not respond to the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that in 
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, the use of facts available 
is appropriate for Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto, Hwen, San 
Chien, San Shing, and Wing. In addition, while Trade Union and Anmax 
provided some information in response to the Departments questionnaire, 
the Department determined that their submissions were substantially 
deficient. Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department sent 
supplemental questionnaires to Trade Union and Anmax so that they would 
cure the deficiencies. However, the Department received no responses 
from these companies within the designated deadline. Thus, we 
preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is also 
warranted with respect to these companies. The Department finds that, 
in not responding to its questionnaire or to its supplemental 
questionnaire, the aforementioned firms have failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of their ability to comply with requests for 
information from the Department. Because necessary information is not 
available on the record with regard to sales by these firms as a result 
of their withholding the requested information, we must make our 
preliminary determination based on facts otherwise available pursuant 
to section 776(a) of the Act.
    Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a 
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because 
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the 
Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of the 
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also 
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information 
derived from such secondary information as the petition, the final 
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information 
placed on the record. In this case, we have used the highest rate from 
any prior segment of the proceeding, which is 10.67 percent. This rate 
was

[[Page 53876]]

calculated in the Amendment to the Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value (56 FR 47737 September 20, 1991), covering the period 
May 1, 1990 through October 31, 1990.
    The Department also sent questionnaires and supplemental to 
Gourmet, which provided timely responses. However, as in previous 
reviews, the Department has again determined that, due to the nature of 
Gourmet's accounting system, it is not able to reconcile the data 
Gourmet submitted in its responses to our questionnaires with its 
financial statements. Reliance on the accounting system used for the 
preparation of the financial statements is a key and vital part of the 
Department's determination that a company's sales and constructed value 
data are credible. Section 776(a)(2)(D) states that the Department 
``shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination under this title'' if an 
interested party or any other person provides information but the 
information can not be verified. Although Gourmet is well aware of the 
Department's requirements for verifiable submissions, it has provided 
information which the Department could not verify. Because its 
submission is not reconcilable, it is not verifiable, and we have 
determined in accordance with section 776(b) that Gourmet has failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Thus we are 
applying adverse facts available to Gourmet. See Memorandum from Thomas 
Futtner to Holly Kuga, dated August 20, 1998, Therefore, as adverse 
facts available, we have determined to use 10.67 percent, which is the 
highest calculated rate for any firm in any segment of the proceeding.
    Because information from prior reviews constitutes secondary 
information, section 776(c) provides that the Department shall, to the 
extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. That Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that corroborate means simply that 
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. H.R. Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2nd 
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. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as 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 
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 63822 December 
2, 1996), where the Department disregarded the highest margin as 
adverse facts available because the margin was based on another 
company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually 
high margin. No such circumstances exist in this case which would cause 
the Department to disregard a prior margin.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminary determine that the 
following margins exist for the period September 1, 1996, through 
August 31, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation.......................      10.67
Buxton International/Uniauto.................................      10.67
Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co................................      10.67
Transcend International......................................       6.93
San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd..............................      10.67
Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd....................................      10.67
Everspring Plastic Corp......................................       6.93
Gingen Metal Corp............................................       6.93
Goldwinate Associates, Inc...................................       6.93
Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd...............................      10.67
Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd................................       6.93
Kwan Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd..................................       6.93
Kuang Hong Industries , Ltd..................................       6.93
Multigrand Industries Inc....................................      10.67
San Shin Hardware Works Co., Ltd.............................      10.67
Trade Union International Inc./Top Line......................      10.67
Uniauto, Inc.................................................      10.67
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company...................      10.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may also 
request a hearing within ten days of publication. If requested, a 
hearing will be held as early as convenient for the parties but not 
later than 30 days after the date of publication or the first work day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 
days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, 
which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed 
not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. 
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 briefs, within 120 days from the 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, based on the above rates, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. The rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries supplied by 
that particular company during the POR. Upon completion of this review, 
the Department will issue appraisement instructions on each 
manufacturer/exporter directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of chrome plated lug nuts from Taiwan entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouses, for consumption on or after the publication 
date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results 
of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required 
where the weighted-average margin is 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, a 
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 or the original investigation, the cash deposit 
rate will be 6.93 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of

[[Page 53877]]

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 
section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 30, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary; Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-26918 Filed 10-06-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M