[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27063-27065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12379]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-846]


Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of 
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results and partial rescission of fourth new 
shipper review and rescission of third antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On January 8, 2001, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results and partial rescission of the fourth new shipper 
review and the preliminary rescission of the third antidumping duty 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors 
from the People's Republic of China. See Brake Rotors from the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 
Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 1303 (January 8, 2001) (Preliminary 
Results). The new shipper review initially covered two respondents and 
the administrative review was requested for three exporter/producer 
combinations (see ``Background'' section below for further discussion). 
The period of review is April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000. We gave 
interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary 
results.
    Based on the additional publicly available information used in 
these final results and the comments received from the interested 
parties, we have made changes in the margin calculation for the one 
respondent in the new shipper review. The final weighted-average 
dumping margin for the reviewed firm in the new shipper review is 
listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of New Shipper 
Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith or Brian Ledgerwood, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1766 
or (202) 482-3836.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''), are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
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 19 CFR part 351 
(2000).

Background

    On January 9, 2001, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results and partial rescission of the fourth 
new shipper review and rescission of the third antidumping duty 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors 
from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') (66 FR 1303). The 
petitioner\1\ submitted its case brief on March 15, 2001. The 
respondents\2\ submitted their rebuttal brief on March 22, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner is the Coalition for the Preservation of 
American Brake Drum and Rotor Aftermarket Manufacturers.
    \2\ The respondent in the new shipper review is Hongfa Machinery 
(Dalian) Co., Ltd. (``Hongfa''). The respondents in the 
administrative review are the following exporters/producer 
combinations (which are excluded from the order on brake rotors only 
with respect to brake rotors sold through those combinations): (1) 
China National Automobile Industry Import & Export Corporation 
(``CAIEC'') or Shandong Laizhou CAPCO Industry (``Laizhou CAPCO'')/
(Laizhou CAPCO; (2) Sheyang Honbase Machinery Co., Ltd. (``Sheyang 
Honbase'') or Laizhou Luyuan Automobile Fittings Co., Ltd. 
(``Laizhou Luyuan'')/Shenyang Honbase or Laizhou Luyuan; and (3) 
China National Machinery and Equipment Import & Export (Xinjiang) 
Co., Ltd. (``Xinjiang'')/Zibo Botai Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 
(``Zibo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 9, 2001, we placed on the record additional publicly 
available information for pallet wood for consideration in the final 
results and provided the parties with an opportunity for comment. On 
April 16, 2001, both parties submitted comments on this additional 
information.
    The Department has conducted these reviews in accordance with 
section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the 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

[[Page 27064]]

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 
these reviews 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 these reviews 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.

Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review

    We have rescinded the new shipper review with respect to Luoyang 
Haoxiang Brake Disc Factory (``Luoyang'') because Luoyang did not 
respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. Section 
776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act provides that ``if an interested party or 
any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by 
the administering authority or the Commission under this title, (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of 
the information or in the from and manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title, or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the 
administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to subsection 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.''
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of a party that has failed 
to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with 
the Department's requests for necessary information. See also Statement 
of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 
(1994) (SAA) at 870. Failure by Luoyang to respond to the Department's 
antidumping questionnaire constitutes a failure to act to the best of 
its ability to comply with a request for information within the meaning 
of section 776(b) of the Act. As a consequence of Luoyang's decision to 
discontinue participation in this review, the Department canceled 
verification of Luoyang's questionnaire response, including its 
separate rate information. Luoyang's failure to respond to the 
Department's supplemental questionnaire constitutes a failure to act to 
the best of its ability to comply with a request for information within 
the meaning of Section 776(b) of the Act. Therefore, we considered 
Luoyang to be an uncooperative respondent and made the adverse 
assumption that Luoyang does not qualify for a separate rate. Thus, we 
have treated it as part of the NME entity. As part of the NME entity, 
Luoyang is not entitled to a rate as a new shipper, because the NME 
entity as a whole was subject to the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') 
investigation. Consequently, we have rescinded the new shipper review 
of Luoyang. See Preliminary Results, 66 FR at 1303.

Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have determined that, during 
the period of review (``POR''), the exporters which received zero rates 
in the LTFV investigation did not make shipments of subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR through a non-excluded exporter/
producer combination. Specifically, we have 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 Memorandum dated October 25, 2000, from 
Brian C. Smith, Team Leader, to the File, titled, ``Results of Request 
for Assistance from the U.S. Customs Service to Further Examine U.S. 
Entries Made By Exporter/Producer Combinations'') (``October 25, 2000, 
memorandum''). In order to make this determination, we first examined 
POR-subject merchandise shipment data furnished by the Customs Service 
by performing a Customs data query. Since the data from our initial 
Customs query was voluminous, we randomly selected 23 entries from the 
data query results for further examination by the Customs Service. 
Specifically, we requested the Customs Service to examine further the 
documentation filed at the U.S. port for each of those selected entries 
made by the exporters at issue to determine the manufacturer of the 
merchandise. Based on the results of our query (see October 25, 2000, 
memorandum), the petitioner in this review filed comments in its case 
brief alleging that 12 of the 23 entries represented situations where 
the entry may not have been based on an excluded exporter/producer 
combination. As a result of the petitioner's comments, we re-examined 
the record data for the 12 entries at issue and requested additional 
clarification from the Customs Service on three of them. Based on our 
re-examination and clarification of the data on the record for these 
entries, we found no evidence that any of the exporter/producer 
combinations which are the subject of this administrative review made 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR through a non-excluded 
exporter/producer combination. (See ``Issues and Decision Memorandum'' 
(``Decision Memo'') from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, to Bernard T. Carreau, fulfilling 
the duties of Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 
8, 2001 (Comment 2), and Memorandum dated May 8, 2001, from Brian C. 
Smith, Team Leader, to the File, titled, ``Clarification of 12 U.S. 
Entries Made By Exporter/Producer Combinations Included in the 
Department's September 28, 2000, Request for Further Information from 
the U.S. Customs Service on Selected Brake Rotor Entries During the 
Period of Review'' for further discussion.) Therefore, we are 
rescinding this review with respect to CAIEC, Laizhou CAPCO, Shenyang 
Honbase, Laizhou Luyuan, and Xinjiang.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs are addressed in the Decision 
Memo, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues 
raised, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this

[[Page 27065]]

notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all 
issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in 
this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, 
room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete 
version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the 
Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on the use of additional publicly available information and 
the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes 
in the margin calculation for the one respondent that cooperated fully 
in the new shipper review. For a discussion of this change, see the 
``Margin Calculations'' section of the Decision Memo.

Final Results of New Shipper Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage 
exists for the period April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                          Exporter                            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hongfa Machinery (Dalian) Co., Ltd.........................         0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 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 Hongfa for which the import-specific 
assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated importer-
specific ad valorem duty assessment rates. We will direct the Customs 
Service to assess the resulting percentage margin against the entered 
Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of that importer's 
entries under the relevant order during the review period. For entries 
from the PRC non-market economy (``NME'') entity companies (i.e., PRC 
exporters which are not entitled separate rates (including Luoyang), 
the Customs Service shall assess ad valorem duties at the PRC-wide 
rate. Because the PRC-wide entity was not reviewed during this POR, the 
PRC-wide rate remains the rate which was established in the less-than-
fair-value investigation. For entries made by PRC companies for which 
the Department has rescinded the administrative review (i.e., the 
exporter/producer combinations listed in the ``Background'' section of 
this notice), the Customs Service shall continue not to assess ad 
valorem duties on those entries made by those exporter/producer 
combinations.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit rates shall be required for merchandise 
subject to the order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for Hongfa will be the rate indicated above; (2) the cash 
deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior 
segment of the proceeding, but for whom the Department has rescinded 
the review or of whom the review was not requested for this POR will 
continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (3) 
the cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity (i.e., all other 
exporters, including Luoyang, which have not been reviewed) will 
continue to be 43.32 percent; and (4) 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 effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections section 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

    May 8, 2001.
Timothy J. Hauser,
Acting Under Secretary for International Trade.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memo

Comments

1. Rescission of Third Administrative Review Based on the Results of 
the Department's Customs Data Query
2. Alleged Violation of Exporter/Producer Combinations Excluded from 
the Order Based on Examination of Selected U.S. Brake Rotor Entries 
During the Period of Review
3. Surrogate Value Selection for Pallet Wood

[FR Doc. 01-12379 Filed 5-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P