[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45664-45666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21834]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 45664]]



DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-601]


Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic 
of Korea: Final Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On February 23, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel 
cooking ware (cookware) from the Republic of Korea. The merchandise 
covered by this order is cookware from the Republic of Korea. The 
review covers twenty-seven manufacturers of subject merchandise: Daelim 
Trading Co., Ltd. (Daelim), Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd. (Dong Won), 
Chefline Corporation (Chefline), Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd. (Samyeung), 
Namyang Kitchenflower Co., Ltd. (Namyang), Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., 
Ltd. (Kyung-Dong), Ssang Yong Ind. Co., Ltd. (Ssangyong), O. Bok 
Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. (O. Bok), Dong Hwa Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. 
(Dong Hwa), Il Shin Co., Ltd. (Il Shin), Hai Dong Stainless Steel Ind. 
Co., Ltd. (Hai Dong), Han Il Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd. (Han Il), 
Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co. (Bae Chin), East One Co., Ltd. (East One), 
Charming Art Co., Ltd. (Charming Art), Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd. (Poong 
Kang), Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd. (Won Jin), Wonkwang Inc. (Wonkwang), 
Sungjin International Inc. (Sungjin), Sae Kwang Aluminum Co., Ltd. (Sae 
Kwang), Woosung Co., Ltd., (Woosung), Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., 
Ltd.,\1\ Seshin Co., Ltd. (Seshin), Pionix Corporation (Pionix), East 
West Trading Korea, Ltd. (East West), Clad Co., Ltd. (Clad), and B.Y. 
Enterprise, Ltd (B.Y.). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 1999, 
through December 31, 1999. Based on our analysis of the comments 
received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, 
the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final 
weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed 
below in the section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Same company as Han Il Stainless Ind. Co., Ltd. listed 
above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Rivas or Ron Trentham, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0651 or 482-6320, respectively.

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's regulations are 
to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Background

    On February 23, 2001, the Department published the preliminary 
results of the 1999 administrative review of the antidumping duty order 
on cookware from Korea. See Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking 
Ware from Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 11259 (February 23, 2001) 
(Preliminary Results). We invited parties to comment on our preliminary 
results of review. On March 26, 2001, we received case briefs from the 
Stainless Steel Cookware Committee (the petitioner) and Dong Won and 
Daelim (the respondents). On April 2, 2001, we received rebuttal briefs 
from the petitioner and respondents. The Department has conducted this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping order is top-of-the-
stove stainless steel cookware from Korea. The subject merchandise is 
all non-electric cooking ware of stainless steel which may have one or 
more layers of aluminum, copper or carbon steel for more even heat 
distribution. The subject merchandise includes skillets, frying pans, 
omelette pans, saucepans, double boilers, stock pots, dutch ovens, 
casseroles, steamers, and other stainless steel vessels, all for 
cooking on stove top burners, except tea kettles and fish poachers. 
Excluded from the scope of the order are stainless steel oven ware and 
stainless steel kitchen ware. The subject merchandise is currently 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 
7323.93.00 and 9604.00.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description remains 
dispositive.
    The Department has issued several scope clarifications for this 
order. The Department found that certain stainless steel pasta and 
steamer inserts (63 FR 41545, August 4, 1998), certain stainless steel 
eight-cup coffee percolators (58 FR 11209, February 24, 1993), and 
certain stainless steel stock pots and covers are within the scope of 
the order (57 FR 57420, December 4, 1992). Moreover, as a result of a 
changed circumstances review, the Department revoked the order on Korea 
in part with respect to certain stainless steel camping ware (1) made 
of single-ply stainless steel having a thickness no greater than 6.0 
millimeters; and (2) consisting of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 quart saucepans 
without handles and with lids that also serve as fry pans (62 FR 3662, 
January 24, 1997).

Partial Recession of Review

    In our preliminary results, we determined that the following 
companies made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR: Sugjin, O. Bok, Won Jin, Hai Dong, Pionix, Seshin, Dong 
Hwa, Wonkwang, and Charming Art. Our review of Customs import data 
indicated that there were no entries of subject merchandise made by 
these manufacturers/exporters during the POR. See Preliminary Results. 
Because

[[Page 45665]]

we received no comments from interested parties on our preliminary 
decision to rescind the review with respect to the above companies, we 
have determined that no changes to our decision to rescind are 
warranted for purposes of these final results. Therefore, we are 
rescinding this review with respect to these manufacturers/exporters.
    On March 17, 2000, counsel for Chefline requested that the 
Department rescind the review with respect to Woosung. Woosung is 
Chefline's original corporate name which was changed to Chefline in 
March 1996. Since Chefline submitted uncontested evidence on the record 
to support its claim and petitioner did not object to Chefline's 
request for recission with regard to Woosung, we preliminarily 
rescinded the review with respect to Woosung. See Preliminary Results. 
Because we received no comments from interested parties on our 
preliminary decision to rescind the review with respect to Woosung, we 
have determined that no changes to our decision to rescind are 
warranted for purposes of these final results. Therefore, we are 
rescinding this review with respect to Woosung.

Facts Available (FA)

    In accordance with section 776 of the Act, we have determined that 
the use of adverse FA is warranted for 14 companies for these final 
results of review.

1. Application of FA

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e), facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In this 
review, as described in detail below, the above-referenced companies 
failed to provide the necessary information in the form and manner 
requested, and, in some instances, the submitted information could not 
be verified. Thus, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the 
Department is required to apply, subject to section 782(d), facts 
otherwise available.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, notwithstanding the 
Department's determination that the submitted information is 
``deficient'' under section 782(d) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider such information if all of the following 
requirements are satisfied: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    The Department has concluded that, because B.Y., Clad , Sae Kwang, 
East One, East West, Bae Chin, Han Il, Il Shin, Kyung-Dong, Poong Kang, 
Namyang, Chefline, Sangyong and Samyeung failed to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, a determination based on total FA is 
warranted for these companies. See the Preliminary Results for a 
detailed discussion of this analysis.

2. Selection of FA

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 
From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997). In the Preliminary Results, 
the Department determined that because B.Y., Clad, Sae Kwang, East One, 
East West, Bae Chin, Han Il, Il Shin, Kyung-Dong, Poong Kang, Namyang, 
and Chefline wholly failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, they did not act to the best of their respective 
ability, and therefore an adverse inference is warranted in applying FA 
for these companies. Further, the Department determined that because 
Sangyong failed to respond to sections B and C of the Department's 
questionnaire and Samyeung failed to respond to section D of the 
Department's questionnaire, these companies failed to act to the best 
of their respective abilities, and therefore an adverse inference is 
warranted in applying FA for these companies.
    For the final results, no interested party comments were submitted 
regarding this issue and we continue to find that the failure of the 14 
manufacturers/exporters listed above either to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire in this review, either in whole or in part, 
demonstrates that these entities failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of their ability. Thus, consistent with the Department's 
practice in cases where a respondent fails to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, in selecting FA for the 14 manufacturers/
exporters listed above an adverse inference is warranted. For a 
discussion of the application of an adverse inference in this case, see 
Preliminary Results, 66 FR at 11262.
    As adverse FA, we are assigning B.Y., Clad, Sae Kwang, East One, 
East West, Bae Chin, Han Il, Il Shin, Kyung-Dong, Poong Kang, Namyang, 
Chefline, Sangyong and Samyeung the highest rate calculated for any 
respondent in any segment of this proceeding. This rate is 31.23 
percent. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Certain Stainless Steel Cookware from Korea, 51 FR 42873 (November 26, 
1986) (Final LTFV Determination). For a discussion on corroboration of 
the 31.23 percent FA rate, see Memorandum on Application of Facts 
Available for Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd. (Samyeung) in the Preliminary 
Results of the 1999 Administrative Review, dated January 30, 2001. 
Also, for a general discussion of the relevance of the selected FA rate 
for all non-cooperating respondents, see Preliminary Results, 66 FR at 
11263-11264.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the ``Issues and Decision 
Memorandum'' (Decision Memorandum) from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 22, 2001, 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which 
parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in 
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding

[[Page 45666]]

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 Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm. The 
paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain 
changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the 
relevant sections of the Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following percentage weighted-average margins 
exist for the period January 1, 1999 through, December 31, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin
                  Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd.................................           16.03
Dae-Lim Trading Co., Ltd................................            1.67
Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd.................................           31.23
SsangYong Ind. Co., Ltd.................................           31.23
Chefline Corporation....................................           31.23
B.Y Enterprise, Ltd.....................................           31.23
Clad Co., Ltd...........................................           31.23
Sae Skwang Aluminum Co., Ltd............................           31.23
East One Co., Ltd.......................................           31.23
East West Trading Korea, Ltd............................           31.23
Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co..................................           31.23
Han Il Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd....................           31.23
Il Shin Co., Ltd........................................           31.23
Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd..........................           31.23
Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd................................           31.23
Namyang Kitchen Flower Co., Ltd.........................           31.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    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 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated for Daelim 
and Dong Won importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer-
specific sales to the total entered value of the same sales. For all 
other respondents, we based the assessment rate on the facts available 
margin percentage. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above 
de minimis, we will instruct Customs to assess antidumping duties on 
that importer's entries of subject merchandise.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of these administrative 
reviews for all shipments of top-of-stove stainless steel cooking ware 
from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after publication date of the final results of these administrative 
reviews, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in 
the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is 
less than 0.5 percent ad valorem and, therefore, de minimis, no cash 
deposit will be required; (2) for exporters not covered in this review, 
but covered in the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published in the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a previous review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews or the LTFV 
investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the ``all-
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification

    This notice serves as a final 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 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 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: August 21, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comments and Responses

    1. Model Match Methodology.
    2. Circumstance of Sale Adjustment for Commissions Incurred on 
Dong Won Sales in Canada.
    3. Home Market Inland Freight Adjustment for Daelim.
    4. Constructed Value Selling Expenses for Dong Won and Daelim.
    5. Imputed Inventory Carrying Costs for Dong Won and Daelim.
    6. Weighted-Average Third-Country Expenses for Dong Won.
    7. Conversion of Third-Country Expenses from Korean Won to U.S. 
Dollars for Dong Won.
    8. Matching Factors with Respect to Don Wong's Products.
    9. Ministerial Error in Daelim's Margin Program Regarding Net 
interest Expense for the Calculation of Constructed Value.

[FR Doc. 01-21834 Filed 8-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P