[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67662-67665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32541]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-811]


Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Wire Rope from the 
Republic of Korea

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Committee of 
Domestic Steel Wire Rope & Specialty Cable Manufacturers, the 
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Korea. The review covers 
16 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of 
review is March 1, 1997, through February 28, 1998.
    We have preliminarily found that, for certain producers/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.
    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 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Kemp, at (202) 482-1276, or John 
Brinkmann, at (202) 482-5288, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

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 of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR 
Part 351, as published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 
27296).

Case History

    On March 26, 1993, the 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 11, 1998, the Department published a 
notice providing an opportunity to request an administrative review of 
this antidumping duty order for the period March 1, 1997, through 
February 28, 1998 (POR). See 63 FR 11868. On March 31, 1998, the 
petitioner requested an administrative review of 19 manufacturers/
exporters of steel wire rope from Korea. Since we had revoked the 
orders for three of the named companies (Chung Woo Rope Co. Ltd., Ssang 
Yong Cable Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and Sun Jin Company) in a prior 
segment of this proceeding, we excluded these three companies and 
initiated a review of the other 16 companies. See Steel Wire Rope from 
the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 17986, 
17990 (April 13, 1998) (Steel Wire Rope Fourth Review Final). We 
published a notice of initiation of this administrative review on April 
24, 1998. See 63 FR 20378.
    We initiated this administrative review for the following 16 
producers and exporters of steel wire rope from Korea: Boo Kook, Dae 
Heung Industrial (Dae Heung), Dae Kyung Metal (Dae Kyung), Dong Il 
Steel (Dong Il), Dong Young, Hanboo Wire Rope (Hanboo), Jinyang Wire 
Rope (Jinyang), Korea Sangsa, Kumho Wire Rope (Kumho), Kwangshin Rope, 
Myung Jin, Seo Hae Industrial Co. Ltd. (Seo Hae), Seo Jin Wire Rope 
(Seo Jin), Sungsan Special Steel Processing (Sungsan), TSK Korea, and 
Yeonsin Metal (Yeonsin).
    On May 15,1998, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to each of 
the respondents, except for Kwangshin Rope and Seo Hae (for whom we did 
not find addresses). After locating the mailing addresses of Kwangshin 
Rope and Seo Hae, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to them on May 
26, 1998.
    Between May 21 and July 7, 1998, we received letters from Korea 
Sangsa, Myung Jin, Dae Heung, Dae Kyung, and HI-LEX Corporation (on 
behalf of its Korean affiliate, TSK Korea) stating that they had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the period 
of review (POR). On June 19, 1998, we received a letter from Sungsan 
stating that it had purchased steel wire rope in Korea and exported it 
to the United States during the POR. The Department received a 
questionnaire

[[Page 67663]]

response from Kumho on June 22, 1998. A supplemental questionnaire was 
issued to Kumho on September 1, 1998, and a response was received on 
September 18, 1998.

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 (HTSUS) 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 HTSUS subheading 7312.10.6000. Although HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and the Customs Service 
purposes, the written description of the scope of this review is 
dispositive.

Non-Responding Companies

    We did not receive responses from nine of the 16 companies to whom 
we sent questionnaires. For four respondents (Dong-Il, Jinyang, 
Yeonsin, and Dong Young), while we have confirmed that the 
questionnaires were delivered to the companies (Dong Young refused to 
accept the questionnaire), none responded. 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 which the U.S. Embassy had indicated 
were closed (Boo Kook, Hanboo, Kwangshin Rope and Seo Jin), the 
questionnaires were undelivered and returned to the Department. As 
Customs Service data indicates that these companies, except for 
Kwangshin Rope, had no shipments during the POR, we are rescinding the 
review with respect to these companies, except for Kwangshin Rope. See 
Partial Rescission section of this notice below. With respect to 
Kwangshin Rope, since the Customs Service data indicates that the 
company had shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR, we have assigned a margin based on the facts available. 
See Use of Facts Available section of this notice below.
    For one respondent (Seo Hae) which the U.S. Embassy indicated had 
closed, although our records show that the questionnaire was in fact 
received and that Seo Hae did not respond, the Customs Service data 
confirms that this company did not have shipments during the POR. 
Accordingly, we are terminating the review for this company. See 
Partial Rescission section of this notice below.

Partial Rescission

    As noted above, between April and August 1998, Dae Heung, Dae 
Kyung, Korea Sangsa, Myung Jin, and TSK Korea informed the Department 
that they had no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR. In addition, information on the record shows 
that Boo Kook, Hanboo, Seo Hae and Seo Jin were no longer in operation 
and that we were unable to deliver our questionnaire (except for Seo 
Hae). Using information from the Customs Service, we have preliminarily 
confirmed that none of these companies had shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations 
and consistent with Departmental practice, we are rescinding 
preliminarily our review of Boo Kook, Dae Heung, Dae Kyung, Hanboo, 
Korea Sangsa, Myung Jin Co., Seo Hae, Seo Jin and TSK Korea. See, e.g., 
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 
35191 (June 29, 1998) (Turkish Pipe and Tube) and Certain Fresh Cut 
Flowers From Colombia; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 14, 
1997).

Use of Facts Available

    We preliminarily find, in accordance with section 776(a) of the 
Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for Dong-Il, Dong 
Young, Jinyang, Kwangshin Rope, Yeonsin, and Sungsan since they did not 
respond to our antidumping questionnaire. As noted above Dong-Il, Dong 
Young, Jinyang, and Yeonsin received, but did not respond to, the 
Department's questionnaire. Although the questionnaire to Kwangshin 
Rope was undeliverable, the record shows that the company did have 
shipments to the United States during the POR. With respect to Sungsan, 
on June 19, 1998, Sungsan submitted a letter to the Department stating 
that it had purchased subject merchandise in Korea and sold it in the 
United States during the POR. It also 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 Sungsan's June 19, 
1998, letter, we determined that Sungsan was the appropriate respondent 
and requested, in a July 1, 1998, letter, that the company complete the 
antidumping questionnaire. There was no further response from Sungsan.
    Section 776(a) of the Act requires the Department to resort to 
facts available if necessary information is not available on the record 
or when an interested party or any other person ``fails to provide 
[requested] information by the deadlines for submission of the 
information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782.'' As provided in section 782(c)(1) of 
the Act, if an interested party ``promptly after receiving a request 
from [the Department] for information, notifies [the Department] that 
such party is unable to submit the information requested in the 
requested form and manner,'' the Department may modify the requirements 
to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on that party. Because Dong-
Il, Dong Young, Jinyang, Kwangshin Rope, Yeonsin, and Sungsan did not 
provide any notification or information to the Department, they have 
failed to comply with subsections (c)(1) and (e). Accordingly, we 
preliminarily find, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, that 
the use of facts available is appropriate for Dong-Il, Dong Young, 
Jinyang, Kwangshin Rope, Yeonsin, and Sungsan.
    With respect to Kwangshin Rope, we preliminarily find that the use 
of facts available is appropriate. Although the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, 
Korea, confirmed that Kwangshin Rope is now closed, information from 
the Customs Service indicates that Kwangshin Rope had shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Since 
Kwangshin Rope closed before it had an opportunity to respond to the 
antidumping questionnaire, as facts available, we are assigning 
Kwangshin Rope the ``All Others'' rate from the less than fair value 
(LTFV) investigation, 1.51 percent, which has been used in prior 
segments of this proceeding as facts available. See Steel Wire Rope 
Fourth Review Final at 17990.
    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. The failure of Dong-Il, Dong Young, Jinyang, Yeonsin, and 
Sungsan to respond to our antidumping questionnaire demonstrates that 
they have failed to act to the best of their

[[Page 67664]]

ability to comply with requests for information. Accordingly, we have 
preliminarily determined that an adverse inference with respect to 
Dong-Il, Dong Young, Jinyang, Yeonsin, and Sungsan is warranted.
    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 antidumping investigation, a previous 
administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. 
We have preliminarily assigned Dong-Il, Dong Young, Jinyang, Yeonsin, 
and Sungsan the rate of 13.79 percent, which is a simple average of 
rates from the petition, as adverse facts available.
    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, in an administrative review, the 
Department does not update the petition to reflect the prices and costs 
that are found during the current review. Rather, in corroborating 
petition figures, the Department determines whether the significant 
elements used to derive a margin in a petition are reliable. With 
respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, 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 (February 22, 1996).
    The adverse facts available rate being applied in this review, 
which is a simple average of rates from the petition, was established 
in the prior review. To corroborate the export prices in the petition, 
we examined the Customs Service import statistics from 1991 for the 
HTSUS subheadings 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. 
However, we concluded that the Customs Service data were not comparable 
to the prices in the petition, because the Customs Service data 
encompass a wide range of steel wire rope products, while the sales in 
the petition consist of a small number of specific product types. With 
regard to the normal values used in the petition's margin calculation, 
we were provided with no useful information by interested parties, and 
are aware of no other independent sources of information, which would 
assist us in this aspect of the corroboration process. Notwithstanding 
the difficulties encountered in our attempts to corroborate the 
information from the petition, the Department has no evidence that 
suggests the petition does not continue to have probative value. 
Accordingly, we determine that the information from the petition is the 
most appropriate basis for adverse facts available.

Export Price

    For sales to the United States, the Department used export price 
(EP) as defined in section 772(a) of the Act for Kumho, 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 
otherwise indicated by the facts of record.
    We calculated EP based on packed, c.i.f. and c&f prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in 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.
    Kumho claimed a duty drawback adjustment based on a fixed rate 
amount per U.S. dollar exported. Consistent with our practice in 
previous reviews of steel wire rope from Korea, we did not allow the 
duty drawback adjustments claimed by Kumho because it did not 
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, 62 FR 64354, 64357 (December 5, 1997).

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 
Kumho sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. See section 773(a) of the Act. Because Kumho had sales in its 
home market that were greater than five percent of its sales in the 
U.S. market, we based normal value (NV) on the prices at which the 
foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting 
country. See section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
    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 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 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 section 353.56 of the 
Department's regulations, 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. 
credit expenses, export recommendation fees, delayed payment charges, 
and document handling charges.

[[Page 67665]]

Currency Conversion

    Our preliminary analysis of Federal Reserve dollar-won exchange 
rate data shows that the won declined rapidly at the end of 1997, 
losing over 40% of its value between the beginning of November and the 
end of December. The decline was, in both speed and magnitude, many 
times more severe than any change in the dollar-won exchange rate 
during the previous eight years. Had the won rebounded quickly enough 
to recover all or almost all of the initial loss, the Department might 
have been inclined to view the won's decline at the end of 1997 as 
nothing more than a sudden, but only momentary, drop, despite the 
magnitude of that drop. As it was, however, there was no significant 
rebound. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the decline 
in the won at the end of 1997 was so precipitous and large that the 
dollar-won exchange rate cannot reasonably be viewed as having simply 
fluctuated during this time, i.e., as having experienced only a 
momentary drop in value. Therefore, in making this preliminary 
determination, the Department used daily rates exclusively for currency 
conversion purposes for home market sales matched to U.S. sales 
occurring between November 1 and December 31, 1997. For U.S. sales 
occurring between January 1 and February 28, 1998, we determined the 
exchange rates based upon our normal practice, with the exception of 
using the average of the January 1 through February 28, 1998, exchange 
rate as a benchmark. See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from the 
Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 63 FR 59514 
(November 4, 1998). We invite the interested parties to comment on this 
issue.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period March 1, 1997, through February 
28, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.........................     *13.79
Dong Young...................................................     *13.79
Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc.......................................     *13.79
Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd................................       0.25
Kwangshin Rope...............................................       1.51
Sungsan Special Steel Processing.............................     *13.79
Yeonsin Metal................................................    *13.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Adverse Facts Available Rate.

    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 thirty 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 Kumho, 
for duty assessment purposes, we calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all 
U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total 
entered value of those same sales. In order to estimate the entered 
value, we subtracted international movement expenses from the gross 
sales value. This specific rate calculated for each importer will be 
used for the assessment of antidumping duties on the relevant entries 
of subject merchandise during the POR.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of steel wire rope from Korea entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of 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 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-32541 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P