[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