[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61581-61590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29206]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-846]
Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of
Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of
First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 6, 1999, the U.S. Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the new shipper review and partial rescission of
antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
brake rotors from the People's Republic of China. See Preliminary
Results of New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brake
Rotors from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 24322 (May 6, 1999).
This review covers seven exporters of the subject merchandise to the
United States, which requested the review and responded to the
Department's questionnaire, and the non-market economy entity,
including three non-responding companies. The period of review is
October 10, 1996, through March 31, 1998. We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 12, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or Terre Keaton, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.
The Applicable Statute
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 references are made to the Department's
regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 14, 1998, the petitioner
1 requested that the Department determine, in the context of
this review, whether certain exporters 2 (who had been
excluded from the antidumping duty order with respect to exports of
brake rotors supplied by producers that furnished the factor data upon
which the exclusion was based) had shipped merchandise during the
period of review (``POR'') manufactured by other producers which would
be subject to review. After analyzing the relevant shipment data and
conducting verification, the Department is rescinding this review in
part with respect to those exporter/producer combinations because they
had no shipments during the POR of merchandise subject to the
antidumping duty order. Furthermore, the Department is also rescinding
this review, in part, with respect to a trading company 3
which is subject to the order but which had no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR; and a trading company 4 which is
subject to the order but which withdrew its request for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for the Preservation of
American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers.
\2\ These exporter/producer combinations are (1) China National
Automobile Industry Import & Export Corporation (``CAIEC'') and
Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (``Laizhou CAPCO''); (2) Shenyang
Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Shengyang Honbase'') and Laizhou
Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd. (``Laizhou Luyuan''); and (3)
China National Machinery and Equipment Import & Export (Xinjiang)
Co., Ltd. (``Xinjiang'') and Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
(``Zibo Botai'').
\3\ This PRC trading company is Southwest Technical Import &
Export Corporation (``Southwest'').
\4\ This PRC trading company is Beijing Xinchangyuan Automobile
Fittings Co., Ltd. (``Xinchangyuan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six of the seven exporters that requested a review submitted full
responses to the antidumping questionnaire were fully cooperative and
are entitled to a separate rate. 5 For those six exporters,
we have determined that U.S. sales have not been made below normal
value. The one exporter requesting a new shipper review, Yantai Chen Fu
Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Chen Fu''), did not permit the Department to
verify its questionnaire response. Because the Department was unable to
assure itself that Chen Fu was entitled to a separate rate, it will
continue to consider Chen Fu part of the non-market economy (``NME'')
entity. Therefore, we have determined that Chen Fu does not qualify as
a new shipper and, accordingly, we are rescinding the new shipper
review. For the NME entity (i.e., People's Republic of China (``PRC'')
government-controlled companies, including PRC companies 6
that did not respond to the antidumping questionnaire or did not permit
verification), which is covered by the concurrent administrative
review, we are basing the final results on ``facts available.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The six exporters are (1) Jilin Provincial Machinery &
Equipment Import & Export Corporation (``Jilin''); (2) Longjing
Walking Tractor Works Foreign Trade Import & Export Corporation
(``Longjing''); (3) Shandong Jiuyang Enterprise Corporation
(``Jiuyang''); (4) Xianghe Zichen Casting Co., Ltd. (``Xianghe'');
(5) Yantai Import & Export Corporation (``Yantai''); and (6) Yenhere
Corporation (``Yenhere'').
\6\ These PRC trading companies are Chen Fu (the new shipper)
and the following companies for which the petitioner requested
reviews, but which did not respond to the Department's
questionnaires: (1) Hebei Metals and Minerals Import & Export
Corporation (``Hebei''); (2) Qingdao Metals, Minerals & Machinery
Import & Export Corporation (``Qingdao''); and (3) Shanxi Machinery
and Equipment Import & Export Corporation (``Shanxi'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess no antidumping
duties on entries from the six PRC exporters that cooperated in this
review for which the importer-specific assessment rates are zero or de
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), and to assess duties on entries
from the NME entity companies at the PRC-wide rate. Entries from all
other companies during this review period (including those for which
the Department has rescinded the administrative review) will be
assessed at the rates applicable at the time of entry.
Background
Since the Department published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of its second new shipper review and first
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors
from the PRC the following events have occurred.
On June 18, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of postponement of the final results until no later than
November 2, 1999 (64 FR 32845). On June 29, 1999, the Department
provided the parties to this proceeding an additional amount of time
(until July 26, 1999), to submit publicly available information for
consideration in the final results. No party submitted any such
additional information. On July 28 and August 2, 1999, the Department
issued verification outlines to Chen Fu, to Longjing, and to the
exporter/producer combinations excluded from antidumping duty order
(the latter solely with respect to the question of which producers had
supplied the relevant exports). See Notice of Final Determinations of
Sales
[[Page 61582]]
at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's
Republic of China, 62 FR 9160 (February 28, 1997) (``Brake Rotors'').
From August 2 through August 19, 1999, the petitioner filed
comments related to the Department's conduct of verification in this
case, the selection of respondents for verification and receipt of
verification exhibits. In an August 4, 1999, memorandum to the file,
the Department explained to the petitioner's counsel that it selected
the verification site and number of companies to be verified in this
case due to security/logistical considerations and Department resource
constraints.
From August 9 through August 17, 1999, the Department conducted
verification of the information and statements submitted by Longjing
and the exporter/producer combinations excluded from this order, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.307.
In an August 20, 1999, memorandum to the file, the Department
addressed the petitioner's verification concerns by stating that the
Department had made decisions with respect to the verification site and
number of companies verified in this case based on security/logistical
considerations and the Department's resource constraints. See August
20, 1999, memorandum to the File from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias. The
Department also informed the petitioner that although the Department's
preference is to verify at the company site, it was not possible to do
so in this case. Moreover, the Department explained to the petitioner
that it was the decision of the Department, not of the respondents, as
to which companies the Department would verify in this review. From
August 30, 1999, through September 10, 1999, the Department issued its
verification reports.
Because neither the respondents nor the petitioner requested a
hearing, no hearing was held in this case. On September 27, 1999, the
petitioner submitted its case brief. Jilin, Longjing, Jiuyang, Xianghe,
Yantai, and Yenhere (hereafter referred to as the ``six respondents'')
did not submit a case brief. On September 29, the Department returned
the petitioner's case brief because it contained new factual
information. On October 4, 1999, the petitioner resubmitted its case
brief without the new factual information and the six respondents
submitted their rebuttal brief.
On October 12, the Department placed on the record a memorandum
which elaborated on its decision to conduct off-site verifications in
this proceeding along with documentation supporting that decision. The
Department provided parties two business days to submit comments on the
contents of the memorandum and attached documentation. On October 14,
the petitioner submitted comments. No other party submitted comments.
Scope of Reviews
The products covered by these reviews are brake rotors made of gray
cast iron, whether finished, semifinished, or unfinished, ranging in
diameter from 8 to 16 inches (20.32 to 40.64 centimeters) and in weight
from 8 to 45 pounds (3.63 to 20.41 kilograms). The size parameters
(weight and dimension) of the brake rotors limit their use to the
following types of motor vehicles: automobiles, all-terrain vehicles,
vans and recreational vehicles under ``one ton and a half,'' and light
trucks designated as ``one ton and a half.''
Finished brake rotors are those that are ready for sale and
installation without any further operations. Semi-finished rotors are
those on which the surface is not entirely smooth, and have undergone
some drilling. Unfinished rotors are those which have undergone some
grinding or turning.
These brake rotors are for motor vehicles, and do not contain in
the casting a logo of an original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'')
which produces vehicles sold in the United States (e.g., General
Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volvo). Brake rotors covered in
this investigation are not certified by OEM producers of vehicles sold
in the United States. The scope also includes composite brake rotors
that are made of gray cast iron, which contain a steel plate, but
otherwise meet the above criteria. Excluded from the scope of the
review are brake rotors made of gray cast iron, whether finished,
semifinished, or unfinished, with a diameter less than 8 inches or
greater than 16 inches (less than 20.32 centimeters or greater than
40.64 centimeters) and a weight less than 8 pounds or greater than 45
pounds (less than 3.63 kilograms or greater than 20.41 kilograms).
Brake rotors are classifiable under subheading 8708.39.5010 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes,
our written description of the scope of these reviews is dispositive.
Period of Reviews
The period of reviews covers the period October 10, 1996, through
March 31, 1998.
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have determined that, during
the POR, the exporters which received zero rates in the less-than-fair-
value (``LTFV'') investigation did not ship to the United States
subject merchandise produced by a manufacturer whose production was not
examined during the LTFV proceeding with respect to sales by the
relevant exporters. Specifically, we determined that during the POR,
(1) neither CAIEC nor Laizhou CAPCO exported brake rotors to the United
States that were manufactured by producers other than Laizhou CAPCO;
(2) neither Shenyang Honbase nor Laizhou Luyuan exported brake rotors
to the United States that were manufactured by producers other than
Shenyang Honbase or Laizhou Luyuan; and (3) Xinjiang did not export
brake rotors to the United States that were manufactured by producers
other than Zibo (see verification reports for CAIEC, Laizhou CAPCO,
Shenyang Honbase, Laizhou Luyuan and Xinjiang dated August 30 through
September 10, 1999). In order to make this determination, we confirmed
shipment data furnished by the U.S. Customs Service relating to entries
made by the exporters at issue by conducting verification of those
exporters. Based on the results of our verification, we are rescinding
this review with respect to CAIEC, Laizhou CAPCO, Shenyang Honbase,
Laizhou Luyuan and Xinjiang.
Furthermore, we have rescinded this review with respect to
Southwest, which reported that it made no shipments of subject
merchandise during this POR, based on the results of our examination of
shipment data furnished by the U.S. Customs Service. The shipment data
we examined did not show U.S. entries of brake rotors during the POR
from Southwest. We have also rescinded this review with respect to
Xinchangyuan because it withdrew its request for review and no other
interested party requested a review of this company. See Preliminary
Results at 24323.
Rescission of New Shipper Review
We have rescinded the review of Chen Fu because Chen Fu did not
allow the Department to conduct verification of its separate rates
information. Therefore, we consider Chen Fu to be an uncooperative
respondent and have made the adverse assumption that Chen Fu does not
qualify for a separate rate and have treated it as part of the NME
entity (see ``Separate Rates'' and ``Facts Available'' sections and
Comment 1 in
[[Page 61583]]
the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice for further
discussion). As part of the NME entity, Chen Fu is not entitled to a
rate as a new shipper, as the NME entity as a whole was subject to the
LTFV investigation. Consequently, we are rescinding the new shipper
review of Chen Fu.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty deposit rate. Seven exporters submitted questionnaire
responses in this review. As mentioned above, we have determined that
Chen Fu does not qualify for a separate rate. (See ``De Facto Control''
section below for further discussion).
The other six exporters that submitted questionnaire responses
exhibit various ownership patterns. Xianghe is a joint venture between
Chinese and U.S. companies. Yenhere is a limited liability corporation
in the PRC. The four other respondents are either wholly owned by all
the people (i.e., Jilin, Longjing, Yantai) or collectively owned (i.e.,
Jiuyang). For these six respondents, a separate rates analysis was
conducted to determine whether the exporters are independent from
government control. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China
(``Bicycles''), 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996).
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) and amplified in
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994)
(``Silicon Carbide''). Under the separate rates criteria, the
Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if
the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities.
1. De Jure Control
Each respondent has placed on the administrative record documents
to demonstrate absence of de jure control, including the ``Law of the
People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole
People,'' adopted on April 13, 1988, (``the Industrial Enterprises
Law''); ``the Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative
Regulations,'' promulgated on June 13, 1988 (``the Enterprise
Registration Regulations;'' the 1990 ``Regulation Governing Rural
Collectively-Owned Enterprises of PRC''; the 1992 ``Regulations for
Transformation of Operational Mechanisms of State-Owned Industrial
Enterprises'' (``Business Operation Provisions''); and the 1994
``Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China.''
In prior cases, we have analyzed these laws and have found them to
sufficiently establish an absence of de jure control of companies
``owned by the whole people,'' joint ventures, privately owned
enterprises or collectively owned enterprises. See, e.g., Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from
the People's Republic of China (``Furfuryl Alcohol''), 60 FR 22544 (May
8, 1995), and Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from
the People's Republic of China (``Drawer Slides''), 60 FR 29571-29576
(June 5, 1995). We have no new information in this proceeding which
would cause us to reconsider this determination with regard to the six
respondents (i.e., Jilin, Longjing, Jiuyang, Xianghe, Yantai and
Yenhere) mentioned above. See Comment 3 in the ``Interested Party
Comments'' section of this notice for further discussion.
2. De Facto Control
As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain
enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented
uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See
Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol. Therefore, the Department has
determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether the respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree
of governmental control which would preclude the Department from
assigning separate rates.
The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by or
subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses (see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol).
Each respondent asserted the following: (1) it establishes its own
export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts without guidance from any
governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own personnel
decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses
profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell
its assets and to obtain loans. Additionally, the respondents'
questionnaire responses indicate that company-specific pricing during
the POR does not suggest coordination among exporters.
In this proceeding, the Department selected two of the seven
respondents for verification, namely Chen Fu and Longjing. The
Department did not select the other five respondents (i.e., Jilin,
Jiuyang, Xianghe, Yantai, and Yenhere) for verification in accordance
with section 351.307(a) of the Department's regulations. One of the
respondents selected for verification, Chen Fu, declined verification.
Therefore, the Department considers Chen Fu's separate rate claim and
response to be unverified (see discussion below).
For Longjing, the Department found no evidence at verification of
government involvement in Longjing's business operations. See Comment 3
in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice for further
discussion. Specifically, Department officials examined sales documents
that showed that Longjing negotiated its contracts and set its own
sales prices with its customers. In addition, the Department reviewed
sales payments, bank statements and accounting documentation that
demonstrated that Longjing received payment from its U.S. customers via
bank wire transfer, which was deposited into its own bank account
without government intervention. Finally, the Department examined
internal company memoranda, such as appointment notices and election
results, which demonstrated that Longjing selected its own management.
See Department verification report on Longjing at page six, and exhibit
one of the August 10, 1999, supplemental response. This information,
taken in its entirety, supports a finding that there is a de facto
absence of governmental control of Longjing's export functions.
With regard to Jilin, Jiuyang, Xianghe, Yantai and Yenhere, the
Department
[[Page 61584]]
elected not to verify these companies' responses. Based on
documentation contained in each company's response, the Department also
finds that each of these five respondents (1) negotiated its contracts
and set its own sales prices with its customers; (2) received payment
from its U.S. customers via bank wire transfer, which was deposited
into its own bank account without government intervention; (3) retained
its profits and, where applicable, arranged its own financing; and (4)
selected its own management. Consequently, we have determined that
Longjing, Jilin, Jiuyang, Xianghe, Yantai and Yenhere have each met the
criteria for the application of separate rates either through
documentation submitted on the record subject to verification or
through actual verification. See Notice of Final Determination at Less
Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR
27222 (May 19, 1997).
Hebei, Qingdao and Shanxi, three of the named respondents in this
review, did not respond to the questionnaire issued in this review.
Hebei, Qingdao and Shanxi also did not submit information which
demonstrated a de jure and de facto absence of government control with
respect to each company's export functions. In addition, the new
shipper respondent, Chen Fu, did not allow the Department to conduct
verification of its questionnaire response which contained information
claiming a de jure and de facto absence of government control with
respect to its export functions. Therefore, we have determined that
these four companies are not entitled to separate rates in this review
and will be considered to be part of the non-responding PRC NME entity.
See Comment 1 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of this
notice for further discussion.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the
facts available if necessary information is not available on the record
of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act
provides that the Department may make an adverse inference in
determining the facts available where an interested party or any other
person: (A) withholds information requested by the Department; (B)
fails to provide requested information by the requested date or in the
form and manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping
proceeding; or (D) provides information that cannot be verified.
For the reasons stated above, Chen Fu, Hebei, Qingdao and Shanxi
failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to separate rates and
therefore are presumed to be part of the PRC NME entity. Furthermore,
because the PRC NME entity did not provide a questionnaire response, it
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. See Preliminary Results
at 64 FR 24324. When the Department must base the entire dumping margin
for a respondent in an administrative review on the facts available
because that respondent has failed to cooperate to the best of its
ability, section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to
make an adverse inference in selecting from the facts available, and to
use as adverse facts available information derived from the petition,
the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other
information placed on the record.
As adverse facts available, imports of subject merchandise from the
PRC NME entity (including Chen Fu, Hebei, Qingdao and Shanxi and any
other producers/exporters which have not qualified for a separate rate
in this or a prior review) will be subject to a PRC-wide rate of 43.32
percent, which is based on the highest corroborated petition rate and
which is the highest rate on the record of this proceeding. Because
information from the petition constitutes secondary information,
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'') (H. Doc. 316, 103d Cong., 2nd Sess., at
870) provides that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative
value.
During our analysis of the petition in the LTFV investigation, we
reviewed all of the data submitted and the assumptions that petitioners
had made when calculating estimated dumping margins. As a result of our
analysis, we recalculated the petition rate during the LTFV
investigation to correct the petitioner's methodology with respect to
certain factor values. See Brake Rotors at 62 FR 9160, 9162, and
Comment 1 in the ``Interested Party Comments'' section of this notice
for further discussion. Thus, because we reviewed the petitioner's
assumptions and the calculations from which the petition rates were
derived, and made appropriate corrections, we determined in the LTFV
investigation that the petition rates, as corrected, had probative
value. We have no new information that would warrant reconsideration of
that decision.
Comparisons
To determine whether sales of the subject merchandise by each
cooperative respondent to the United States were made at less than
normal value (``NV''), we compared the export price (``EP'') to the NV,
as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of
this notice, below.
Export Price
We calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act,
because the subject merchandise was sold directly by the PRC exporter
to unaffiliated parties in the United States prior to importation into
the United States and constructed export price methodology was not
warranted based on the facts of record. We calculated EP based on the
same methodology used in the preliminary results.
Normal Value
A. Non-Market Economy Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as an NME country. None of the parties to this
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
B. Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. We determined that
India and Indonesia are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of
overall economic development (see Memorandum from Office of Policy to
Louis Apple, dated June 23, 1998). In addition, based on publicly
available information placed on the record, we determined that India is
a significant producer of the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we
considered India the primary surrogate country for purposes of valuing
the factors of production as the basis for NV because it meets the
Department's criteria for surrogate country selection. Where we could
not find surrogate factor values from India, we used values from
Indonesia.
C. Factors of Production
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on the factors of production reported by the companies in the PRC
which produced the subject merchandise for the
[[Page 61585]]
exporters which sold the subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR. To calculate NV, the reported unit factor quantities
were multiplied by publicly available Indian values or Indonesian
values.
The selection of the surrogate values applied in this determination
was based on the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data.
As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices.
For those values not contemporaneous with the POR and quoted in a
foreign currency, we adjusted for inflation using wholesale price
indices published in the International Monetary Fund's International
Financial Statistics. For a complete analysis of surrogate values, see
Memorandum from the Team to the File Regarding Factors Valuation for
the Final Results, dated November 2, 1999 (``Final Results Valuation
Memorandum'').
We calculated surrogate values based on the same methodology used
in the preliminary results with the following exception--we used the
verified factors of Longjing, which is both an exporter and producer of
the subject merchandise (see Comment 2 in the ``Interested Party
Comments'' section of this notice for further discussion).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act
and section 351.415 of the Department's regulations, based on the rates
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Interested Party Comments
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received comments only from the petitioner. We
received rebuttal comments only from Jilin, Longjing, Jiuyang, Xianghe,
Yantai, and Yenhere.
Comment 1: Rate Assignment for Respondents That Did Not Respond to the
Department's Questionnaire or Declined Verification
The petitioner contends that, based on previous Department
decisions, the Department should assign the highest petition rate
rather than the PRC country-wide rate to four PRC companies (i.e., Chen
Fu, Hebei, Qingdao and Shanxi) which either did not respond to the
Department's questionnaire or declined verification. In support of its
argument, the petitioner cites to the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 64 FR
12967 (March 16, 1999); the Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia, 61 FR
42833 (August 19, 1996); the Final Results and Partial Recission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Roller Chain, Other Than
Bicycle Chain from Japan, 63 FR 63671 (November 16, 1998); the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-
Alloy Steel Pipe from Romania, 61 FR 24274 (May 14, 1996); and the
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of One Megabit or Above
from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 30841 (June 8, 1999).
The respondent did not comment on this issue.
DOC Position
We do not agree with the petitioner. We have determined that Chen
Fu, Hebei, Qingdao and Shanxi have not fully cooperated with the
Department in this proceeding either because they refused to submit
questionnaire responses or because they refused verification. As a
general practice in NME cases, when a respondent fails to cooperate in
a proceeding to such an extent that the Department cannot ascertain
whether it is entitled to a separate rate, we consider such
uncooperative respondents to be part of the NME entity, and, as such,
subject to the PRC country-wide rate. As adverse facts available, we
normally assign as the country-wide rate the highest margin in the
petition. However, in the LTFV proceeding, we revised the highest rate
in the petition (64.56 percent) as a result of finding through
corroboration procedures that the petitioner incorrectly treated
certain factory overhead items as direct materials. As a result of
recalculating NV in the petition by treating those items as part of
factory overhead and reassigning an Indian surrogate value to one
material for which a value based on a U.S. price was incorrectly
assigned, we arrived at a revised and corroborated highest petition
rate for brake rotors of 43.32 percent. See Brake Rotors at 62 FR 9162.
Therefore, we have used this corroborated rate as adverse facts
available for all of the companies within the NME entity. The
administrative cases relied upon by the petitioner have no
applicability in this case because they involve cases in which the
Department was able to corroborate the highest rate alleged in the
petition or assigned as adverse facts available the highest calculated
rate from the investigation to uncooperative respondents.
Comment 2: Verification of Longjing's Data
The petitioner argues that, as a result of verification, Longjing's
response has been substantially revised, and that Longjing submitted
new information at verification. Specifically, the petitioner claims
that at verification the Department found errors in almost all of the
raw material cost allocations, as well as in the labor, energy and
production figures included in Longjing's response. In addition, the
petitioner claims that a verification exhibit the Department collected
to document Longjing's electrical usage contains electrical usage
figures on an electricity vendor invoice which are inconsistent with
the meter reading figures contained in Longjing's electrical records.
The petitioner argues that the Department should not allow Longjing to
use verification as an opportunity to reconstruct its questionnaire
response, and that the errors noted in the verification report indicate
that Longjing did not provide accurate and complete information prior
to verification. Moreover, the petitioner claims that the number of
errors noted in the verification report calls into question the
reliability of information not verified. Therefore, the petitioner
contends that the use of total facts available is warranted with regard
to Longjing. In support of its arguments, the petitioner cites to the
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Silicon Metal
from Brazil, 62 FR 1953, 1969 (January 14, 1997) (``Silicon Metal from
Brazil''), and the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube
from Mexico, 64 FR 34190, 34191 (June 25, 1999) (``Pipe and Tube from
Mexico'').
Longjing maintains that the petitioner's claim that it failed
verification because of the minor changes and clarifications Longjing
brought to the attention of the Department prior to the start of
verification has no merit. The respondent adds that the errors in its
response were minor in nature and did not affect the overall integrity
of the response, and that the Department was able to verify all of
Longjing's corrections as accurate and reliable.
DOC Position
We agree with Longjing. Longjing informed the Department of some
minor clerical errors they found in preparation for verification at the
commencement of verification. After thoroughly examining selected data
reported by Longjing using standard verification techniques, we
determined that these errors did not
[[Page 61586]]
affect the overall integrity of Longjing's Section D response. The
errors that the petitioner is alleging warrant resorting to adverse
facts available involve the misreporting of seven material factors, the
electricity factor and the labor factors for all control numbers
included in Longjing's factors of production (``FOP'') listing. We
verified that all of these errors resulted from Longjing using a
slightly higher than actual total production amount in its allocation
methodology. Longjing alerted us to this error at the start of
verification and we were able to determine the nature and extent of the
error and confirm that Longjing's corrected information was accurate
based on its accounting and production records. See verification
exhibits 0, 4, 5A, 15, 16A through 16C, 18A through 18K, 21, 22, 23,
and pages 13 through 18 of the September 10, 1999, Longjing
verification report.
We note that although the change in the production quantity
affected the allocation of more than one factor reported in the Section
D listing, the resulting changes to the factor amounts reported in the
Section D response (using the revised production quantity in the
allocation formula) were minor in nature and had absolutely no impact
on the final analysis. Moreover, the Department was able to verify all
of the corrected information (see pages and exhibits noted above from
the Longjing verification report). In addition, we examined and tested
the accuracy of all of Longjing's reported factors data, and were able
to determine that the only errors in Longjing's data (with the
exception of one which was also minor in nature) were those brought to
the Department's attention prior to the start of verification (see
pages 4 and 5 of the Longjing verification report).
With regard to the petitioner's claim that information in one
particular exhibit does not support Longjing's reported electricity
factor, we find the petitioner's claim has no merit. First, the sales
invoice that the petitioner claims was the only one provided by
Longjing is one of several examined by the Department and/or available
for examination by the Department. The Department only requested a copy
of one invoice in this instance because Longjing was able to tie its
worksheets showing total electricity usage for each month of the POR
back to its source documentation (invoices and payment receipts) and
internal records. Second, the petitioner is factually incorrect in
claiming that the total kilowatt usage on the August 1997 invoice from
the electricity vendor to Longjing contained in the exhibit does not
reconcile to the sum of two kilowatt usage figures noted for the
corresponding month on Longjing's internal energy record (see pages 1
and 6 of verification exhibit 23). As noted on the verification exhibit
and in the verification report, Longjing apportioned part of its total
factory electricity usage in each month to administrative (i.e., non-
production) operations as reflected in its internal energy records and
accounting records (see page17 and verification exhibits 18I and 23 of
the Longjing verification report).
Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we find the application of facts
available is unwarranted in this case and have used the corrected
factors data noted in the verification report for Longjing in the final
results. Unlike Pipe and Tube from Mexico, we do not find that the data
errors of Longjing were so pervasive as to prevent the Department from
relying on Longjing's response for the final results. See Pipe and Tube
from Mexico at 64 FR 34191. Moreover, unlike Silicon Metal from Brazil,
we find that Longjing fully substantiated all portions of its response.
See Silicon Metal from Brazil at 62 FR 1955.
Comment 3: Request for Ministry Verifications
The petitioner argues that the Department should have conducted
verification at the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation
(``MOFTEC'') and the Ministry of Machinery Industry (``MMI'') in this
proceeding in an effort to clarify questions it characterized as left
unanswered during the LTFV investigation. For example, the petitioner
claims that all respondents in this case failed to disclose to the
Department that they had dealings with MOFTEC based on information
obtained by the Department from MMI during the LTFV investigation.
Moreover, the petitioner claims that MOFTEC failed to inform the
Department that it had dealings with trading companies during the LTFV
proceeding. In addition, the petitioner argues that, in the LTFV
proceeding, MMI withheld information from the Department regarding its
meetings with manufacturers, the macro-guidance it provided to 10
industrial areas, and the field research it conducts to determine how
government policies affect these industries. The petitioner argues that
the Department should have conducted verifications of MMI and MOFTEC to
further examine the relationships these ministries have with trading
companies and manufacturers. However, since the Department did not
conduct verification at these two PRC ministries, the petitioner
alleges that the Department has not established the extent to which
MOFTEC deals with trading companies and the extent to which MMI deals
with manufacturers.
In addition, the petitioner argues that the burden of proving de
facto absence of government control has not been met by the respondents
in this review because the petitioner claims they willfully withheld
information relevant for determining whether they are entitled to
separate rates. Based on this presumption, the petitioner contends that
the respondents did not cooperate to the best of their ability, and
that the Department should therefore apply adverse facts available by
denying each respondent a separate rate. In support of its argument,
the petitioner cites to the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or
Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the People's Republic of
China, 64 FR 5770, 5771 (February 5, 1999).
The respondents maintain that the Department should not impute any
alleged lack of cooperation by MMI and MOFTEC in a prior review or
investigation to the respondents, who have cooperated fully with the
Department's requests in this review, and who have independently
established their entitlement to separate rates in this case. The
respondents also maintain that the petitioner's insistence that the
Department conduct a verification of MMI and MOFTEC is illustrative of
petitioner's misunderstanding of the Department's NME practice with
regard to separate rates analysis.
DOC Position
We agree with the respondents. There is nothing on the record of
this proceeding that suggests that a Department visit to MMI or MOFTEC
was warranted. In the LTFV investigation, the petitioner provided us
with documentary evidence in support of its claim that two respondents
were still controlled by the PRC government. Thus, in the LTFV
investigation, documentation submitted by the petitioner justified the
Department's visit to MMI in order to examine in greater depth the
relationship between MMI and two respondents in the LTFV proceeding.
Neither of the two respondents involved in that case is a named
respondent in this review. Furthermore, in this administrative review,
we have no evidence of a similar relationship between any of the six
cooperating respondents and MMI or MOFTEC. Therefore, we determined
that there was no basis for conducting verification at either MMI or
MOFTEC,
[[Page 61587]]
and no basis for inferring any lack of cooperation with respect to MMI,
MOFTEC or the cooperating respondents. The Court of International Trade
has already rejected a similar claim with respect to the LTFV
investigation. See Coalition for the Preservation of American Brake
Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers v. United States, 44 F.
Supp.2d 229, 242-246 (CIT 1999).
As in a prior segment of this proceeding (i.e., the first new
shipper review), the petitioner has sought to draw overly broad
conclusions from a verification conducted during the LTFV
investigation. The petitioner incorrectly claims that the same
situation exists in this case with regard to two respondents in the
LTFV proceeding, and has sought to apply those erroneous conclusions to
the respondents in this review by placing on the record of this review
the Department's verification report from the investigation. We find
that the information in that report has no bearing on our findings in
this segment of the proceeding. As mentioned above, our inquiries at
the MMI during the investigation were limited to matters associated
with two PRC companies which are not part of this review. In contrast,
in this review, there is substantial evidence on the record which
indicates that none of the six cooperative respondents is subject to
government control. Because there is no evidence on this record to the
contrary, we find that the petitioner's claim that the six respondents
have withheld information on the separate rates issue to be without
merit. Based on the information obtained in conducting numerous NME
investigations, the Department considers MOFTEC's role vis-a-vis the
trading companies to be compatible with the existence of separate rates
for such companies (i.e., MOFTEC providing information on production
and sales of the subject merchandise exported to the United States from
the trading companies). We do not consider this relationship to
constitute government control. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of
Final Determinations: Brake Drums and Brake Rotors from the People's
Republic of China, 61 FR 53190, 53192 (October 10, 1996).
As for MMI's dealings with manufacturers, we know that MMI meets
with certain manufacturers in the automotive industry but we have no
evidence that any of the brake rotor manufacturers in this proceeding
have been a part of those meetings. Even if PRC manufacturers of the
subject merchandise have attended meetings with MMI, however, we find
that this is irrelevant because such a practice per se would not
constitute government control. The U.S. government also holds regular
meetings with companies in various industry sectors to facilitate
communication with regard to issues affecting these industries.
Furthermore, manufacturers are not entitled to a separate rate or do
not have to meet the separate rates criteria, unless they are also
exporters of the subject merchandise. Since we have no evidence that
any respondents (i.e., exporters) in this proceeding are also
manufacturers of the subject merchandise who have met with MMI, the
fact that MMI has a practice of meeting with companies in the
automotive and other sectors does not require a finding that the
respondents in this proceeding do not qualify for a separate rate.
Comment 4: The Department's Discretion in Conducting Verifications
The petitioner argues that the Department should have conducted
verification of the exporter/producer combinations excluded from the
antidumping duty order and Longjing at each company's facilities,
rather than at a hotel in Beijing. In addition, although the Department
stated that due to security reasons it intended to conduct verification
of each company's records at a hotel in Beijing rather than at the
company's facility, the petitioner claims that there is no evidence on
the record supporting the Department's decision and that the
Department's action is contrary to its own practice. Moreover, the
petitioner contends that, because the Department conducted abbreviated
and off-site verifications, the completeness and accuracy of the
verification results are in question.
First, the petitioner contends that the Department should either
redo all of the verifications or resort to facts available for all
respondents. The petitioner alleges that the value of verifications
performed at a hotel is limited, because Department officials cannot
actually verify the place where production or sale of the subject
merchandise occurs or perform surprise inspections or document traces.
In addition, the petitioner alleges that by verifying at the hotel, the
Department was (1) unable to determine if the merchandise was
transshipped from another manufacturer; (2) unable to check energy
consumption meters; (3) and unable to check production operations.
Moreover, the petitioner alleges that the respondents falsified their
records because they had prior notice through the verification outlines
of everything the Department intended to examine at verification and
because the Department did not conduct verification at the companies'
facilities. The petitioner cites to the Department's Antidumping Manual
in support of its argument.
Second, the petitioner contends that another reason why the
Department should either redo the verification or resort to facts
available is that each verification was one to two days in length,
which the petitioner describes as contrary to established Department
policy. The petitioner also cites to the Department's Antidumping
Manual in support of this argument. In addition, the petitioner claims,
based on a number of court decisions, that the Department abused its
discretion when it decided to conduct abbreviated verifications at a
hotel. See Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd. v. United States (``Rubberflex''),
Slip. Op. 99-68 (CIT July 23, 1999); Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United
States (``Rhone Poulenc''), 899 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
Usinor Sacilor v. United States (``Usinor Sacilor''), 872 F. Supp. 1000
(CIT 1994); and Sugiyama Chain Co., Ltd. v. United States
(``Sugiyama''), 852 F. Supp. 1103 (CIT 1994).
Finally, the petitioner contends that the Department should redo
the verifications or resort to facts available because the respondents
and the PRC government impeded these reviews. The petitioner argues
that this conclusion is supported by the Department's security concerns
with regard to conducting verification at the companies' facilities.
The respondents maintain that the Department properly exercised its
discretion in conducting verification, and that the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate any factual support for its allegations that (1)
``off-site'' and shortened verifications should be considered failed
verifications; (2) such verifications cannot properly ensure the
integrity of the responses; and (3) the Department should base
respondents' margins on adverse facts available because any security
concerns should be attributed to efforts by the PRC government and the
respondents to impede these reviews.
DOC Position
We disagree with the petitioner. Although it is the Department's
preference to conduct on-site verifications, it is not a requirement.
More importantly, when there are security considerations to take into
account at the on-site verification location, the Department has the
discretion to elect to verify at off-site locations. See Torrington v.
United States, 68 F.3d 1347, 1350 (Fe. Circ.
[[Page 61588]]
1995) (upholding the Department's decision to cancel verification
entirely in light of security concerns). In this case, the Department
successfully examined the records of the companies it selected at the
off-site location.
In this proceeding, the Department had major concerns about the
security situation in the PRC as a result of the May 1999 NATO bombing
incident in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The Department had planned on-site
verifications for most of the companies it intended to examine in the
PRC (with the exception of one company located in Xinjiang province) in
early June 1999. Even though the U.S. State Department country advisory
notice indicated no security concerns in early June 1999, our embassy
in Beijing advised us to postpone our travel to the PRC until further
notice. In light of the postponement in travel and uncertainty
expressed by our embassy in the PRC, we delayed the verifications of
the companies we selected until August 1999. The petitioner's comments
submitted in early August 1999 immediately after the Department issued
its verification outlines in this proceeding objected to the Department
conducting off-site verifications in Beijing and questioned the
Department's assessment of the security situation in the PRC. In an
August 4, 1999, memorandum to the file, a Department official explained
to the petitioner's counsel that the verification site and number of
companies to be verified in this case was non-negotiable due to
security/logistical considerations and the Department's resource
constraints. The Department reiterated this explanation in an August
20, 1999, memorandum to the file. In past cases, the Department has
resorted to off-site verifications when it wished to conduct
verification but had security concerns. See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales At Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved
Mushrooms from Indonesia, 63 FR 72268 (December 31, 1998).
Regarding the Department's assessment of the security situation in
the PRC, even though the U.S. State Department country advisory notice
did not refer to security concerns associated with travel in the PRC
from early July through early August 1999, our embassy in Beijing
advised us to conduct our verifications, if possible, within the
confines of major cities in the PRC because of the continued
uncertainty with respect to security. Therefore, the Department
requested that all companies located outside of Beijing that it
intended to verify bring all of their accounting records and support
documentation to an off-site location in Beijing. The companies which
the Department selected for verification were the four excluded
exporter/producer combinations mentioned below, the new shipper (i.e.,
Chen Fu), and Longjing. The Department informed these companies that
they would be held to the same level of accountability to which they
normally are held during on-site verifications. Even though the
verifications (except for one at CAIEC's headquarters in Beijing) were
conducted at an off-site location, the Department was able to determine
for each producer/exporter combination that no merchandise was
transhipped from another manufacturer by thoroughly examining
accounting records, and reconciling the production records of the
manufacturer to the sales records of the exporter included in each
producer/exporter combination. (See verification reports and exhibits
for CAIEC, Laizhou CAPCO, Laizhou Luyuan, Shenyang Honbase, and
Xinjiang for further discussion.) The Department also examined data
from U.S. Customs obtained prior to the preliminary results. These data
corroborate our verification findings. In contrast, the Department has
no evidence that any exporter in the excluded exporter/producer
combinations has shipped merchandise to the United States during the
POR from a producer not included in those combinations.
Petitioner's insistence that it was critical for the Department to
conduct on-site verifications in order to examine the number of people
at the factory, check meters to measure energy consumption figures,
tour the production facilities or inspect the factory inventories for
evidence of merchandise being transshipped from another manufacturer is
without merit. First, it is not a requirement that the Department
verify through physical inspection or verify all information reported
by a respondent, especially if the information can be linked to
accounting, production or sales records, backed up by support
documentation. The only factory for which such a physical count of
employees or meter reading checks might have had any possible relevance
was Longjing. For all of the excluded exporter/producer combinations,
the Department's emphasis was not on labor or electricity usage at the
factories but on whether all of the brake rotor sales made by the
exporter in the exporter/producer combinations were (based on sales,
inventory and production records) manufactured by the producer with
which it was linked in the exporter/producer combination. As for the
verification of Longjing, even without a physical inspection, the
Department was able to ascertain, to its satisfaction, through
examination of salary, labor attendance, and energy records, payment
documentation and production records, the number of employees and the
amount of energy consumption at the factory. Therefore, it was not
necessary to conduct a physical count of the employees at the factory
or examine the electricity meter. In fact, such tests would have only
provided data on the factory's current levels of employment and
electricity usage, and not the levels associated with the POR, which
ended at least one year and a half before the verifications. Therefore,
any conclusions drawn from information gathered at the factory with
respect to labor or energy factors would have been of minimal use in
this proceeding.
Second, the Department did not find it imperative in this
proceeding to tour the production facilities or inspect the factory
inventories in order to ascertain whether the exporter/producer
combinations or Longjing were transshipping merchandise produced by
manufacturers undisclosed to the Department. First of all, a tour of
the production facility or physical inspection of inventory in the
factory warehouses would have only provided information on: (1) What
materials the factory currently uses to produce its merchandise; (2)
the types of products the factory currently produces; and (3) the
products the factory currently keeps in inventory rather than what the
factory used or produced during the POR, a year and a half earlier.
Therefore, any conclusions drawn from information gathered at the
factory with respect to a plant tour or inspection of its production
facilities and inventory warehouse would not have been directly
relevant to the data the Department was verifying. For the same reason,
the petitioner's unsupported allegation that the factories and/or
trading companies we selected for verification had merchandise in their
warehouses which was produced by manufacturers undisclosed to the
Department is also of little value. Furthermore, the Department was
able to resolve through a vigorous examination of each of the selected
company's accounting, production and sales records and supporting
documentation, the issue of whether any of the excluded exporters was
transshipping merchandise not actually produced by the factory
associated with its exclusion from the antidumping duty order.
In addition, the Department's examination and testing of the
records
[[Page 61589]]
and statements of each company was not constrained by where the
verification took place or the number of days during which the
Department examined each company's records. As indicated above, the
Department sought to verify only one issue (i.e., the source of
exported merchandise) with respect to all verified companies other than
Longjing (i.e., the exporters excluded from the order). Thus, it is not
unusual that these verifications could be completed quickly. As the
verification reports illustrate, the Department thoroughly examined the
topics included in each company's verification outline and thoroughly
tested the sales and production information noted in each company's
accounting records in support of its statements or in support of data
contained in its response. The number of days the Department spent
examining each company's accounting records and covering the topics
noted in the verification outlines did not hinder the Department from
conducting comprehensive examinations of each company's data. For
example, whenever the Department requested a document which a
particular company did not have at the verification site, in every
case, the company was able to supply the requested documentation by
transmitting the requested documentation via facsimile from the
company's facilities to the off-site verification location.
Furthermore, the judicial cases the petitioner relies upon as the
basis for its claim that the Department's decision to conduct an
abbreviated, off-site verification is an abuse of discretion are
inapposite. Rhone Poulenc simply stands for the broad premise that the
Department strives to determine margins as accurately as possible. This
case does not specify that verifications must be conducted either on-
site or for any particular number of days. See Rhone Poulenc, 889 F. 2d
at 1191. Usinor Sacilor and Sugiyama likewise do not involve any issues
related to abbreviated or off-site verifications. Rubberflex criticized
the Department for not allowing the respondent sufficient time to
prepare for verification, not the length or location of the
verification. See Rubberflex, Slip Op. 99-68 at 21. Furthermore, the
opinion in Rubberflex also acknowledges the Department's broad
discretion with respect to the conduct of verification. Thus,
Rubberflex cites to a different judicial precedent which addresses the
specific question of the Department's discretion as to the length of
verification. Id., at 16, citing Persico Pizzamiglio, S.A. v. United
States, 18 CIT 299, 307 (1994)(rejecting respondent's claim that the
Department devoted insufficient time to verification, on the grounds
that ``there is no statutory mandate as to how long the process of
verification must last,'' such that the Department is accorded
discretion to make such determinations considering the time and
resource constraints that the agency faces). As noted above, the Court
of Appeals has held that the Department has extremely broad discretion
in setting-up verification. See Torrington v. U.S., 68 F.3d at 1350.
Final Results of the Review
We determine that the following margins exist for the six
respondents, which fully cooperated in this review, and the PRC entity,
for the period October 10, 1996, through March 31, 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/producer/exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jilin Provincial Machinery & Equipment Import & Export 0.00
Corporation
Longjing Walking Tractor Works Foreign Trade Import & Export 0.00
Corporation..................................................
Shandong Jiuyang Enterprise Corporation....................... 0.00
Xianghe Zichen Casting Co., Ltd............................... 0.00
Yantai Import & Export Corporation............................ 0.00
Yenhere Corporation........................................... 0.00
PRC-Wide Rate................................................. 43.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: (A) Exports by the following exporter/producer combinations
continue to be excluded from the antidumping duty order: (1) CAIEC or
Laizhou CAPCO/Laizhou CAPCO; (2) Shenyang or Laizhou Luyuan/Shenyang
or Laizhou Luyuan; (3) Xinjiang/Zibo.
(B) The separate rates established for the following companies in the
investigation or in an earlier review remain in effect either because
of non-shipment during this POR or because no review was requested for
this POR: (1) Southwest; and (2) Xinchangyuan.
(C) All exporters other than the six cooperative respondents or those
named above in (A) or (B) are subject to the PRC-wide rate.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs
Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties all entries
of subject merchandise during the POR from the six PRC exporters that
cooperated in this review for which the importer-specific assessment
rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). Pursuant to
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem
duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the
dumping margins calculated for the examined sales (i.e., sales made
during the POR by the above-referenced six PRC exporters who cooperated
in this review) to the total entered value of those same sales. In
order to estimate the entered value, we have subtracted international
movement expenses from the gross sales value. The resulting ad valorem
rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries made by the importers
during the POR.
For entries from the NME entity companies, the Customs Service
shall assess ad valorem duties at the PRC-wide rate. For entries made
by PRC companies for which the Department has rescinded the
administrative review (i.e., Southwest and Xinchangyuan), the Customs
Service shall assess ad valorem duties at the rates applicable at the
time of entry.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following deposit rates shall be required for merchandise
subject to the order 7 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results
of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) The cash deposit rate for each company that fully cooperated in
this review will be the rate established in the final results; (2) for
imports of brake rotors from the PRC made by the exporter/producer
combinations listed in this notice, entries of these exporters may be
liquidated without regard to antidumping duties, except that, if the
exporter listed in the exporter/producer combination sells subject
merchandise which is not manufactured by the producer in that same
exporter/producer combination, then those entries will be subject to
the ``PRC-wide'' rate; (3) the cash deposit rate for PRC exporters
which received a separate rate in the LTFV investigation but who did
not export subject merchandise during the POR or for which there was no
request for administrative review (e.g., Southwest and Xinchangyuan)
will continue to be the rate assigned in that investigation; (4) the
cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity (i.e., all other PRC exporters
subject to the order, including Chen Fu, Hebei, Qingdao and Shanxi)
will be 43.32 percent; and (5) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC
exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit
requirements shall remain in
[[Page 61590]]
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Merchandise excluded from the order includes merchandise
produced and exported by the above-referenced exporter-producer
combinations. Such merchandise should not be suspended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as the final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and terms of the APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777i(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Dated: November 2, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-29206 Filed 11-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P