[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36251-36254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17371]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-822]


Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of 
China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that sales of certain helical 
spring lock washers from the People's Republic of China were made below 
normal value during the period October 1, 1999 through September 30, 
2000. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hastings or Craig Matney, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone (202) 482-3464 or 482-1778, respectively.

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, as amended (the 
Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) 
regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

    On October 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty 
order on certain helical spring lock washers (HSLWs) from the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) (58 FR 53914). The Department notified 
interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative 
review of this order on October 20, 2000 (65 FR 63057). The petitioner, 
Shakeproof Assembly Components Division of Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of 
Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co. Ltd. (ZWG), the predecessor firm to Hang Zhou 
Spring Washer Co., Ltd. (collectively Hangzhou), on October 31, 2000. 
The notice of initiation of this administrative review was published on 
November 30, 2000 (65 FR 71299).
    On February 20 and 26, 2001, Hangzhou responded to the Department's 
January 5, 2001 questionnaire. The Department, on March 27, 2001, 
provided parties with an opportunity to submit information regarding 
appropriate surrogate values. On April 20, 2001, both petitioner and 
Hangzhou submitted surrogate value comments. The Department issued a 
supplemental questionnaire to Hangzhou on May 17, 2001. Hangzhou 
submitted its supplemental questionnaire response on June 5, 2001.
    The Department is conducting this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the order are HSLWs of carbon steel, of 
carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non-heat-
treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are 
designed to: (1) Function as a spring to compensate for developed 
looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly; (2) 
distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and, (3) 
provide a hardened

[[Page 36252]]

bearing surface. The scope does not include internal or external tooth 
washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made of other metals, 
such as copper.
    HSLWs subject to the order are currently classifiable under 
subheading 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope 
of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    This review covers the period October 1, 1999, through September 
30, 2000.

Separate Rates Determination

    To establish whether a company operating in a state-controlled 
economy is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate, 
the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by 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 this policy, 
exporters in non-market economy countries (NMEs) are entitled to 
separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence 
of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to export 
activities. Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de 
jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (1) 
An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and, (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence 
of government control over exports is based on four factors: (1) 
Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the 
financing of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to 
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and, (4) whether 
each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection 
of management. (See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587 and Sparklers, 56 
FR at 20589.)
    In each of the previous administrative reviews of the antidumping 
duty order on HSLWs from the PRC, covering successive review periods 
from October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1999, we determined that 
Hangzhou and its predecessor, ZWG, merited a separate rate. We have 
found that the evidence on the record in this review also demonstrates 
an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect 
to Hangzhou's export activities according to the criteria identified in 
Sparklers, and an absence of government control with respect to the 
additional criteria identified in Silicon Carbide. Therefore, we have 
assigned Hangzhou a separate rate.

Export Price

    Because Hangzhou sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United 
States and constructed export price methodology is not otherwise 
indicated, we have used export price in accordance with section 772(a) 
of the Act.
    We calculated export price based on the FOB price to unaffiliated 
purchasers. From this price, we deducted amounts for foreign inland 
freight, and brokerage and handling pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act. We valued these deductions using surrogate values. We selected 
India as the surrogate country for the reasons explained in the 
``Normal Value'' section of this notice.

Normal Value

    The Department has determined the PRC to be an NME country in all 
previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 
the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME shall remain 
in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the 
parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this review. 
Moreover, parties to this proceeding have not argued that the PRC HSLW 
industry is a market-oriented industry (MOI) and, consequently, we have 
no basis to determine that the information in this review would permit 
the calculation of normal value (NV) using PRC prices or costs. Section 
773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the 
Department shall determine NV using a factors-of-production methodology 
if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME, and (2) the 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act. Therefore, we calculated NV based on factors of production 
in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.408(c).
    Under the factors-of-production (FOP) methodology, we are required 
to value the NME producer's inputs in a comparable market economy 
country that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We 
determined that India is at a comparable level of economic development 
to that of the PRC. (See Memorandum to Susan Kuhbach from Jeff May, 
dated March 22, 2001, ``Seventh Administrative Review for Certain 
Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China,'' 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit--Public File.) Also, India 
is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Therefore, for 
this review, we have used Indian prices to value the FOP except where a 
meaningful amount of the factor was purchased from a market economy 
supplier and paid for in a market economy currency.
    We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India 
which were: (1) Average non-export values; (2) representative of a 
range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR; 
(3) product-specific; and, (4) tax-exclusive. We valued the factors of 
production as follows:
     A meaningful amount of the input carbon steel wire rod was 
purchased from the United Kingdom, a market economy supplier, and paid 
for in a market economy currency. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we 
valued this factor using the price paid to the market economy supplier. 
Thus, for carbon steel wire rod values, we used the average cost per 
metric ton of carbon steel wire rod imported from the United Kingdom by 
Hangzhou during the POR. We made adjustments to account for the freight 
costs incurred between the port and Hangzhou.
     To value the scrap steel sold by Hangzhou, we used per 
kilogram values obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign 
Trade of India--Imports (MSFTI) as a by-product offset.
     To value the chemicals used in the production and plating 
process of HSLWs, we used per kilogram import values obtained from 
MSFTI and the Indian publication Chemical Weekly. We adjusted these 
values, where appropriate, to reflect inflation using the Wholesale 
Price Index (WPI) as reported in the International Financial Statistics 
published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We also adjusted 
these values to account for freight costs incurred between the supplier 
and Hangzhou.

[[Page 36253]]

     To value coal, we used a per kilogram value obtained from 
the MFSTI. We adjusted this value to reflect inflation using the WPI 
published by the IMF. We also made adjustments to account for freight 
costs incurred between the supplier and Hangzhou.
     To value electricity, we used the electricity price data 
from Energy Data Directory and Yearbook (1999/2000) published by the 
Tata Energy Research Institute. We adjusted the value to reflect 
inflation using the electricity sector-specific inflation index 
published in the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Bulletin.
     To value water, we used the Second Water Utilities Data 
Book for the Asian and Pacific Region published by the Asian 
Development Bank in 1997. We adjusted the value to reflect inflation 
using the WPI published by the IMF.
     For labor, we used the regression-based wage rate for the 
PRC in ``Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,'' located on the 
Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/. Because of the variability of 
wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products 
(GDP), 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) requires the use of a regression-based wage 
rate. The source for the regression wage rates is ``Expected Wages of 
Selected NME Countries--1998 Income Data,'' Year Book of Labour 
Statistics 1999, International Labour Office, (Geneva: 1999).
     For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative 
expenses (SG&A), and profit values, we used information from the 
January, 1997 RBI Bulletin for the Indian industry group ``Processing 
and Manufacturing: Metals, Chemicals, and Products Thereof.'' From this 
information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage 
of the total raw materials, labor and energy (ML&E) costs, SG&A as a 
percentage of ML&E plus overhead (i.e., cost of manufacture), and the 
profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A.
     For packing materials, we used the per kilogram values 
obtained from the MFSTI. Where necessary, we adjusted these values to 
reflect inflation using the WPI published by the IMF. We also made 
adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the PRC 
supplier and Hangzhou.
     To value foreign brokerage and handling, we used 
information reported in the New Shipper Review for Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod from India, 66 FR 27629 (May 18, 2001). See Meltroll Engineering 
Pvt. Ltd.''s submission dated September 12, 1999. We adjusted this 
value to reflect inflation using the WPI published by the IMF.
     To value truck freight, we used November 1999 price quotes 
which were obtained by the Department in India and used in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin from the 
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 33805 (May 25, 2000) (Bulk Aspirin 
from the PRC).
     To value rail freight, we used November 1999 rail freight 
price quotes obtained by the Department and used in Bulk Aspirin from 
the PRC.
     To value shipping freight, we used a rate reported to the 
Department in the August, 1993 cable from the U.S. Embassy in India 
which was submitted for and used in the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the 
People's Republic of China, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993). We 
adjusted the rate to reflect inflation using the WPI published by the 
IMF.
    For a complete description of the factor values used, see 
``Memorandum to File: Factor Values Used for the Preliminary Results of 
the Seventh Administrative Review,'' dated July 3, 2001 (Factors 
Memorandum) a public version of which is available in the Public File 
of the Central Records Unit in the main Commerce building.

Preliminary Results of Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin 
exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
         Manufacturer/exporter               Time period      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang Zhou Spring Washer Co. Ltd./           10/1/99-9/30/00         9.99
 Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the scheduled date 
for submission of rebuttal briefs (see below). Interested parties may 
submit written arguments in case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 
in case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date of 
filing the case briefs. Parties who submit briefs in these proceedings 
should provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and 
a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Copies of case 
briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3).
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary 
results.
    Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be 
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of HSLWs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Hangzhou, 
which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-
specific rate established in the final results of this administrative 
review; (2) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 
the PRC rate, 128.63 percent, which is the All Other PRC Manufacturers, 
Producers and Exporters rate from the Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the PRC, 
58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993); and, (3) for non-PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the 
rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.


[[Page 36254]]


    Dated: July 3, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-17371 Filed 7-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P