[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53776-53778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-867]


Notice of Amended Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields 
From the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Amended preliminary antidumping duty determination of sales at 
less than fair value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Enforcement 
Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1102.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations for 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 the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are automotive 
replacement glass (``ARG'') windshields, and parts thereof, whether 
clear or tinted, whether coated or not, and whether or not they include 
antennas, ceramics, mirror buttons or VIN notches, and whether or not 
they are encapsulated. ARG windshields are laminated safety glass 
(i.e., two layers of (typically float) glass with a sheet of clear or 
tinted plastic in between (usually polyvinyl butyral)), which are 
produced and sold for use by automotive glass installation shops to 
replace windshields in automotive vehicles (i.e., passengers cars, 
light trucks, vans, sport utility vehicles, etc.) that are cracked, 
broken or otherwise damaged.
    ARG windshields subject to this investigation are currently 
classifiable under subheading 7007.21.10.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedules of the United States (HTSUS). Specifically excluded from the 
scope of this investigation are laminated automotive windshields sold 
for use in original assembly of vehicles. While HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description 
of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
    As discussed in our notice of initiation, the scope of this 
investigation poses unique problems of administration. For the final 
determination, we continue to invite parties to provide information on 
physical characteristics which would allow U.S. Customs officials to 
distinguish between ARG windshields, and windshields for new 
automobiles. We also invite comments on procedures for administering 
any order which may result from this investigation on the basis of end 
use. Finally, information on the record shows that all windshields 
imported from the PRC during the POI were ARG windshields; 
consequently, we note that even if the scope of this order were to 
cover all windshields, the Department would have all the information 
necessary to make a final determination.

Amendment of Preliminary Determination

    On September 10, 2001, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') preliminary determined that ARG windshields from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') is being, or is likely to be, sold 
in the United States at less than fair value (``LTFV''), as provided in 
section 735(a) of the Tariff Act. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 66 
FR 48233 (September 19, 2001).
    On September 21, 2001, respondent, Fuyao Glass Industry Group 
Company, Ltd. (``FYG'') and petitioners timely filed allegations that 
the Department made ministerial errors in the final determination.
    The Department is amending the preliminary determination in the 
antidumping investigation of ARG windshields from the PRC only for FYG.

Significant Ministerial Error

    A significant ministerial error is defined as an error, the 
correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would 
result in (1) a change of at least five absolute percentage points in, 
but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin 
calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or 
(2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero or 
de minimis and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than de 
minimis or vice versa. See 19 CFR 351.224(g).

FYG's Allegations of Ministerial Errors by the Department

    Comment 1: FYG argues that the Department incorrectly calculated 
constructed export price (``CEP'') profit. FYG argues that the CEP 
profit ratio, calculated by the Department, should be multiplied by 
U.S. selling expenses to derive CEP profit. FYG points out that the 
Department incorrectly multiplied the CEP profit ratio by gross unit 
price. FYG cites section 772(d)(3) of the Act and DOC Policy Memo 97/1 
in arguing that the CEP profit ratio must be multiplied by U.S. Selling 
expenses, not gross unit price.
    Department's Position: We are with FYG. The Department's practice 
is to multiply the CEP profit ratio by U.S. selling expenses. The 
Department will change the calculation for the final determination by 
multiplying the CEP profit rate by U.S. selling expenses. The 
correction of this error in combination with the correction of the 
other errors would result in a margin of 3.04 percent. This is more 
than five percentage points different from and more than 25 percent of 
the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the preliminary 
determination (9.79%). Accordingly, the error alleged by respondent is 
a significant ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.224(g)(1).
    Comment 2: FYG alleges that the Department double counted molding. 
FYG argues that the Department deducted an amount from U.S. price to

[[Page 53777]]

account for molding purchases made in the U.S. and shipped directly to 
FYG's U.S. customer. FYG argues that the Department should not deduct 
an amount for molding from U.S. price when molding is sourced from 
Taiwan. FYG argues that they provided a ratio for control numbers 
(``CONNUM'') for which molding was purchased and that the Department 
should use this ratio to allocate molding purchases from U.S. 
suppliers.
    Department's Position: The Department does not agree that this is a 
ministerial error. FYG reported in its June 25, 2001 response at 8, 
that it had no way to distinguish between those sales which used 
molding sourced in the United States (and shipped directly to the U.S. 
customer), and those sales which used molding purchased from the United 
States and shipped to China (to be included in the shipment). The 
Department, therefore, made an adjustment for molding for all U.S. 
sales. Therefore, we are not making the suggested correction because 
the alleged error is not an unintentional error covered by the 
ministerial error provision.
    Comment 3: FYG alleges that the Department failed to correctly 
calculate the freight expense for the input of coal. Citing the Factors 
of Production Memorandum (``FOP Memo'') at 20, FYG maintains that the 
Department should use the shorter of the distance from the domestic 
supplier to FYG's factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to 
FYG's factory (See Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. 
Cir. 1997)). FYG argues that the Department calculated distance using 
the ``Sigma'' freight distance, and should have instead used the actual 
distance from the supplies to FYG's factory, which is shorter than the 
distance between the port and FYG's factory.
    Department's Position: We agree with FYG and have used the actual 
distance between the coal supplier and FYG's factory. We have revised 
the freight input calculation to reflect this correction. The 
correction of this error in combination with the correction of the 
other errors would result in a margin of 3.04 percent. This is more 
than five percentage points different from and more than 25 percent of 
the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the preliminary 
determination (9.79%). Accordingly, the error alleged by respondent is 
a significant ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 
351.244(g)(1).
    Comment 4: FYG alleges that the Department made a ministerial error 
by improperly deducting a molding cost for a CONNUM that in fact 
included no molding. Citing Exhibit 6 of its August 15, 2001 
submission, FYG argues that the data provided in this exhibit contained 
a CONNUM that should not have been merged into the U.S. and FOP 
dataset. FYG argues that the seventh digit in the CONNUM denotes that 
no molding was sold with this particular model and, therefore, sales 
with this CONNUM should not have a molding deduction.
    Department's Position: The Department does not agree that this a 
ministerial error. The Department relied on FYG's August 15, 2001 
submission which shows that for the CONNUM in question, market economy 
molding purchases occurred. The Department relied on FYG's response in 
preparing the calculations and it is not evident that the CONNUM in 
question did not in fact have molding purchases. Therefore, we are not 
making the suggested correction because the alleged error is not an 
unintentional error covered by the ministerial error provision.
    Comment 5: FYG alleges that the Department made a ministerial error 
by incorrectly failing to add selling, general and administrative 
(``SG&A'') costs to the cost of manufacture (``COM'') in calculating 
cost of production (``COP''). Citing FOP Memo at 17, FYG points out 
that the Department intended to calculate COP by summing materials, 
energy, labor, overhead, and selling, general and administrative 
expenses (``SG&A''). FYG argues that the COP figure did not include 
costs associated with SG&A, only materials, energy, labor and overhead.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees that this is a 
ministerial error. The Department normally adds SG&A to COM to derive 
COP, which we failed to do in this case. The correction of this error 
in combination with the correction of the other errors would result in 
a margin of 3.04 percent for FYG. This is more than five percentage 
points different from and more than 25 percent of the weighted-average 
dumping margin calculated in the preliminary determination (9.79%). 
Accordingly, the error alleged by respondent is a significant 
ministerial error within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(g)(1).
    Comment 6: FYG alleges that the Department used an outdated labor 
rate in calculating inputs. Citing 1998 Yearbook of Labour Statistics 
and the Department's regression-based analysis posted on its Web site, 
FYG argues that the labor rate used in the preliminary determination is 
outdated, compared with a more contemporaneous labor rate for 1999 now 
listed on the Department's Web site.
    Department's Position: The Department does not agree that this is a 
ministerial error. The Department used information available at the 
time of the preliminary determination and at that time listed on its 
website. Labor rates for 1999 were not available to the Department at 
the time of the preliminary determination. Therefore, we are not making 
the suggested correction because the alleged error is not an 
unintentional error covered by the ministerial error provision.

Petitioner's Allegations of Ministerial Errors by the Department

    Comment 7: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error in the value it assigned to the second panel of glass 
of FYG's solar windshields. Citing FYG's June 25, 2001 submission at 
11, petitioners point out that FYG reported it uses one pane of 
standard float glass and one pane of solar glass when it constructs a 
solar windshield. Petitioners argue that the Department should treat 
standard float glass as clear float glass, instead of colored float 
glass.
    Department's Position: The Department does not agree that this is a 
ministerial error. FYG explained that standard float glass was used 
along with a solar panel in the construction of solar windshields. The 
Department does not consider this record information to be sufficient 
to make a determination that standard glass is clear glass. The 
Department also notes that FYG uses a small amount of clear glass in 
producing subject merchandise. The Department plans to examine this 
information more closely at verification. Therefore, we are not making 
the suggested correction because the alleged error is not an 
unintentional error covered by the ministerial error provision.
    Comment 8: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error in the values it assigned to Xinyi Automotive Glass 
(Shenzhen) Company, Ltd.'s (``Xinyi'') PVB. Citing the FOP Memo at 7, 
petitioners point out that Attachment 4 to the FOP Memo lists the value 
for clear PVB and shaded PVB differently then those listed on page 7 of 
the FOP memo. Petitioners argue that the values listed for clear PVB 
and shaded PVB should be reversed.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees that this is a 
ministerial error. The Department found that the values calculated for 
clear and shaded PVB in the FOP Memo were reversed. The Department 
found that after correction of this error, Xinyi's margin remains de 
minimis. Accordingly, the error alleged by

[[Page 53778]]

respondent is not a significant ministerial error within the meaning of 
19 CFR 351.224(g)(1) or (2) and we are not issuing an amended 
preliminary determination. The Department of Commerce will, however, 
correct this error for the final determination.
    Comment 9: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error by using the incorrect Wholesale Price Index 
(``WPI'') value for December 2000. Citing International Financial 
Statistics (``IFS''), May 2001, petitioners argue that the Department 
used a preliminary value listed in this publication, instead of using 
the final WPI for December 2000 as it is listed in the IFS for July 
2001. Petitioners also argue that the WPI listed for December 2000 was 
in bold to indicate that it is preliminary. Petitioners also maintain 
that the WPI for other periods used by the Department (April 2000-
December 2000, April 1998-March 1999, 1997, and 1996) do not match what 
is reported in the July 2001 edition of IFS.
    Department's Position: The Department does not agree that this is a 
ministerial error. Contrary to petitioners' argument, the December 2000 
WPI was not bolded (denoting a preliminary number) in the May 2001 
issue of IFS used by the Department. The Department utilized the most 
recent information on the record at the time of the preliminary 
determination. June WPI data were not available. In regard to the other 
claimed inaccuracies listed above, petitioners derive different WPI's 
due to rounding differences. Therefore, we are not making the suggested 
correction because the alleged error is not an unintentional error 
covered by the ministerial error provision.
    Comment 10: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error by using a 1992 WPI base for data collected from the 
period November 1991 through April 1992 in calculating an average value 
in Rupees per metric ton value for domestic inland insurance. Citing 
the Department's Web site (http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/factorv/prc/#Source Index), which shows the average value in Rupees per metric ton, 
petitioners argue that the period of data used to calculate the average 
value in Rupees per metric ton should coincide with the period November 
1991 through April 1992, and not the 1992 time period, as used by the 
Department. Petitioners also argue that the Department should have used 
the adjusted base year figure for 1992.
    Department's Position: The Department does not agree that this is a 
ministerial error. The Department considers the argument by petitioners 
to be one of methodology and not ministerial. Therefore, we are not 
making the suggested correction because the alleged error is not an 
unintentional error covered by the ministerial error provision. 
However, the Department will examine both issues mentioned above more 
closely for the final determination.
    Comment 11: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error by including labor expenses, both direct and 
indirect, incurred by surrogate company Saint-Gobain Sekurit India 
Limited (``St. Gobain'') in the Department's calculation of the 
financial ratio for factory overhead and ultimately in the SG&A ratio. 
Petitioners argue that inclusion of total labor from St. Gobain in the 
calculation of factory overhead by the Department is incorrect because 
doing so would include not only direct, but indirect labor in the total 
COM.
    Department's Position: The Department does not agree that this is a 
ministerial error. The Department regards its decision to account for 
labor in the build-up of COM as one of selected methodology. Based on 
the information available to the Department, there was no way to 
distinguish between indirect and direct labor in reviewing St. Gobain's 
financial statement. The Department also took into consideration that a 
majority of the labor reported in St. Gobain's financial statement, 
absent information to the contrary, is more likely to be direct labor. 
Therefore, we are not making the suggested correction because the 
alleged error is not an unintentional error covered by the ministerial 
error provision.
    We are amending the preliminary results of the antidumping duty 
investigation of ARG from the PRC to reflect the correction of the 
above-cited ministerial errors. The revised final weighted-average 
dumping margins are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Original   Revised
                                                     weighted   weighted
              Exporter/ manufacturer                 average    average
                                                      margin     margin
                                                     percent    percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYG...............................................       9.79       3.04
All Others Rate...................................       9.79       3.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 635(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are 
directing the United States Customs Service (``Customs'') to continue 
suspending liquidation on all imports of the subject merchandise from 
the PRC. Customs shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 
equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds the 
export price as indicated in the chart above. These suspension-of-
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 635(d) of the Act, we have notified the 
International Trade Commission of our amended final determination.
    This determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 17, 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-26787 Filed 10-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M