[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5563-5569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2870]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-601]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the Stainless Steel Cookware 
Committee (the Committee), the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware from Korea. The period of 
review (POR) is January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
    We preliminarily determine that certain manufacturers/exporters 
sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. 
If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service 
(Customs) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We 
invite interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. 
Parties who submit comments in this proceeding should also submit with 
the argument(s): (1) a statement of the issue(s) and (2) a brief 
summary of their argument (not to exceed five pages).

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 6, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald M. Trentham and Thomas F. 
Futtner, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482-
6320 and (202) 482-3814, 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 the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).

[[Page 5564]]

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on top-of-the-
stove stainless steel cooking ware (cookware) from Korea on January 20, 
1987 (52 FR 2139). On January 18, 2001, the Department published a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on cookware from Korea (66 FR 4796) covering the 
period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
    On January 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the 
Committee (the petitioner), whose members are Regal Ware, Inc., The 
West Bend Company, New Era Cookware and Vita-Craft Corporation, 
requested that we conduct an administrative review of twenty-six 
specific manufacturers/exporters of cookware from Korea: Daelim Trading 
Co., Ltd. (Daelim), Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd. (Dong Won), Chefline 
Corporation, Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd., Namyang Kitchenflower Co., Ltd., 
Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd., Ssang Yong Ind. Co., Ltd., O. Bok 
Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Dong Hwa Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Il Shin 
Co., Ltd., Hai Dong Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Han II Stainless 
Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co., East One Co., Ltd., 
Charming Art Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd., Won Jin Ind. Co., 
Ltd., Wonkwang Inc., Sungjin International Inc., Sae Kwang Aluminum 
Co., Ltd., Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Seshin Co., Ltd., 
Pionix Corporation, East West Trading Korea, Ltd., Clad Co., Ltd., and 
B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b), we 
published a notice of initiation of the review on February 28, 2001 (66 
FR 12758).
    On March 2, 2001, we issued Section A antidumping questionnaires to 
each of the twenty-six manufacturers/exporters listed above. In 
response to our request for information, Pionix Corporation, Namyang 
Kitchenflower Co., Ltd., and Dong Hwa Steel Co., Ltd., reported that 
they had no sales or shipments during the POR. Information on the 
record indicates that there were no entries of subject merchandise made 
by these manufacturers/exporters during the POR. Accordingly, we are 
preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these 
manufacturers/exporters.
    The following companies failed to respond to the Department's 
Section A questionnaire: Chefline Corporation, Sam Yeung Ind. Co., 
Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd., Ssang Yong Ind. Co., Ltd., O. 
Bok Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Il Shin Co., Ltd., Hai Dong Stainless 
Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Han II Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Bae Chin 
Metal Ind. Co., East One Co., Ltd., Charming Art Co., Ltd., Poong Kang 
Ind. Co., Ltd., Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd., Wonkwang Inc., Sungjin 
International Inc., Sae Kwang Aluminum Co., Ltd., Hanil Stainless Steel 
Ind. Co., Ltd., Seshin Co., Ltd., East West Trading Korea, Ltd., Clad 
Co., Ltd., and B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd. On January 4, 2002, we informed 
each of these companies that because they failed to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, we may use facts available (FA) to 
determine their dumping margins. In response, the following 
manufacturers/exporters reported that they had no sales or shipments 
during the POR: Ssang Yong Ind., Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd., 
Sungjin International, Inc., Seshin Co., Ltd., O. Bok Stainless Steel 
Co., Ltd., Hai Dong Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., and Bae Chin Metal Ind. 
Co. Information on the record indicates that there were no entries of 
subject merchandise from these firms during the POR. Accordingly, we 
are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these 
manufacturers/exporters.
    On April 2, 2001, Daelim and Dong Won responded to Section A of the 
antidumping questionnaire. On May 3, 2001, the Department issued 
Sections B, C and D of the Department's questionnaire to these two 
companies. Daelim and Dong Won filed responses to Sections B and C on 
June 18, 2001. On July 3, 2001, Daelim and Dong Won responded to 
Section D of the Department's questionnaire.
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for issuing a preliminary determination in an 
administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to 
complete the preliminary review within the statutory time limit of 245 
days. On September 26, 2001, the Department published a notice of 
extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in this case to 
January 30, 2002. See Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware 
From Korea: Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 49164 (September 26, 2001).
    On November 2, 2001, the Department issued Section A through D 
supplemental questionnaires to Daelim and Dong Won. The responses to 
these supplemental questionnaires were received on November 30, 2001. 
On December 19, 2001, the Department issued an additional Section A 
through D supplemental questionnaire to these companies. The responses 
were submitted by the companies on January 11, 2002.
    The Department is conducting 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).

FA

Application of FA

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if any interested party: 
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 
(B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission 
of the information or in the form or manner requested; (C) 
significantly impedes an antidumping investigation; or (D) provides 
such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department 
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 
available in making its determination.

[[Page 5565]]

    Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) of the Act if: (1) the information is submitted by the deadline 
established for its submission; (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 in providing the information and meeting the requirements 
established by the Department with respect to the information; and (5) 
the information can be used without undue difficulties
    As stated above, on March 2, 2001, we issued Section A 
questionnaires to twenty-six manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise. The following companies failed to respond to the 
Department's Section A questionnaire: Chefline Corporation, Sam Yeung 
Ind. Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd., Il Shin Co., Ltd., Han 
II Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., East One Co., Ltd., Charming Art 
Co., Ltd., Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd., Wonkwang Inc., Sae Kwang Aluminum 
Co., Ltd., Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., East West Trading 
Korea, Ltd., Clad Co., Ltd., and B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd. On January 4, 
2002, we informed each of these companies that because they failed to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire, we may use FA to determine 
their dumping margins.
    Because these 14 companies failed to provide any of the necessary 
information requested by the Department, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we must establish the margins for these 
companies based totally on facts otherwise available.

Selection of Adverse FA (AFA)

    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). These 14 companies were given 
two opportunities to respond, and did not. Moreover, these companies 
failed to offer any explanation for their failure to respond to our 
questionnaires. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the 
Department to assume that these companies possessed the records 
necessary for this review; however, by not supplying the information 
the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the 
best of their ability. As these 14 companies have failed to cooperate 
to the best of their ability, we are applying an adverse inference 
pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA, we have used 31.23 
percent, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment 
of this proceeding. 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).

Corroboration of Information

    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as AFA 
information derived from the petition, the final determination from the 
less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, a previous administrative 
review, or any other information placed on the record.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary 
information is defined as ``[i]nformation derived from the petition 
that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination 
concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under 
section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.'' See Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-
316 at 870 (1994) and 19 CFR 351.308(d).
    The SAA further provides that the term ``corroborate'' means that 
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value (see SAA at 870). Thus, to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
    The rate used as AFA in this segment was originally calculated 
using verified information from the investigative segment of this 
proceeding. See Final LTFV Determination. The only source for 
calculated margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an 
administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. Furthermore, we have no new information that would lead us to 
reconsider the reliability of the rate being used in this case.
    As to the relevance of the margin used for AFA, the courts have 
stated that ``[b]y requiring corroboration of adverse inference rates, 
Congress clearly intended that such rates should be reasonable and have 
some basis in reality.'' F.Lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino 
S.p.A., v. U.S., 216 F.3d 1027, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    The rate selected is the rate currently applicable to certain 
companies, including 10 of these 14 companies. See Top-of-the-Stove 
Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea: Final Results 
and Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
66 FR 45664 (August 29, 2001) (Final Results). In determining a 
relevant AFA rate, the Department assumes that if the non-responding 
parties could have demonstrated that their dumping margins were lower, 
they would have participated in this review and attempted to do so. See 
Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 
1990). Therefore, given these 14 companies' failure to cooperate to the 
best of their ability in this review, we have no reason to believe that 
their dumping margins would be any less than the highest calculated 
rate in this proceeding. This rate ensures that they do not benefit by 
failing to cooperate fully. Therefore, we consider the rate of 31.23 
percent relevant and appropriate to use as AFA for the non-responding 
parties.

NV Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of cookware from South Korea to the 
United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price 
(EP) to the NV for Daelim and EP and constructed export price (CEP) to 
the NV for Dong Won, as specified in the EP, CEP and NV sections of 
this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, 
we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these 
to individual EP and CEP transactions.

EP

    Where Daelim and Dong Won sold merchandise directly to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States, we used EP, in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, as the price to the United States. For both 
respondents, we calculated EP using the packed prices charged to the 
first unaffiliated customer in the United States (the starting price).
    We made deductions from the starting price amounts for movement 
expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Movement 
expenses included, where appropriate, brokerage and handling, 
international freight, and marine insurance, in accordance with

[[Page 5566]]

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We added duty drawback received on 
imported materials, where applicable, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) 
of the Act.

CEP

    For Dong Won, we calculated CEP, in accordance with subsection 
772(b) of the Act, for those sales to unaffiliated purchasers that took 
place after importation into the United States. We based CEP on the 
packed FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. 
Where appropriate, we made deductions for discounts. We also made 
deductions for movement expenses in accordance with 772(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act. Movement expenses included foreign inland freight, ocean freight, 
marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. Customs duties, and 
U.S. inland freight. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, 
we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities 
occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses, 
inventory carrying costs, and other indirect selling expenses. Also, we 
made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of 
the Act. Further, we added duty drawback received on imported 
materials, where applicable, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the 
Act.

NV

1. Viability

    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales 
of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since 
Daelim's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
provides a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on home market sales. 
Because Dong Won's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign 
like product was less than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market 
was not viable. Therefore, we have based NV for Dong Won on third 
country sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary 
course of trade. Because Dong Won's aggregate volume of sales of the 
foreign like product in Canada was more than five percent of its 
aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we used 
sales to Canada as the third country comparison sales. As in the 
preceding segment of this proceeding, the Department notes that Canada 
was Dong Won's largest third country market for cookware in terms of 
both value and quantity and the cookware that Dong Won exported to 
Canada was more similar to the subject merchandise exported to the 
United States than the cookware exported to other comparison markets. 
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).

2. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    The Department disregarded certain sales made by Daelim and Dong 
Won during the previous administrative review because we found that 
these sales failed the cost test. See Final Results. Pursuant to 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, this provides reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect in this review segment that Daelim and Dong Won 
made sales in the home or third country markets at prices below the 
COP. Consequently we initiated a COP inquiry with respect to both 
Daelim and Dong Wong and conducted the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated, 
respectively, COP based on the sum of Daelim and Dong Won's cost of 
materials and fabrication (COM) for the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for SG&A, including financial expense, and packing costs. For 
the preliminary results, we relied on Daelim's and Dong Won's submitted 
information without adjustment.

B. Test of Foreign Market Sales Prices

    We compared COP to foreign market sale prices of the foreign like 
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In 
determining whether to disregard foreign market sales made at prices 
below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) within an 
extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices 
which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a 
product-specific basis, we compared the COP to foreign market prices, 
less any applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, and 
selling expenses.

C. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices 
less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that 
product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made 
in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's 
sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the 
COP, we determined such sales to have been made in substantial 
quantities within an extended period of time, within the meaning of 
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we compared prices to POR or 
fiscal year average costs, we also determined that such sales were not 
made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    We found, looking at Dong Won's third country market sales and 
Daelim's home market sales, that both made sales at below COP prices 
within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. Further, 
we found that these sales prices did not permit for the recovery of 
costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these 
sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products sold in the relevant foreign markets meeting the description 
in the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the foreign 
markets made in the ordinary course of trade (i.e., sales within the 
contemporaneous window which passed the cost test), we compared U.S. 
sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the 
ordinary course of trade. Further, as in the preceding segment of this 
proceeding, merchandise was considered ``similar'' for purposes of 
comparison only if it is of the same ``product type,'' (i.e., (1) 
vessels or (2) parts). Among merchandise which was identical on the 
basis of ``product type,'' we then selected the most ``similar'' model 
through a hierarchical ranking of the remaining 11 product 
characteristics

[[Page 5567]]

listed in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire and 
application of the DIFMER test. If there were no sales of identical or 
similar merchandise in the foreign market to compare to U.S. sales, we 
compared U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of the product sold 
in the U.S. market during the comparison period. For a further 
discussion of the Department's product comparison methodology, see 
Final Results and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 1.

Level of Trade (LOT)

    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if the 
Department compares a U.S. sale at one LOT to NV sales at a different 
LOT, we will adjust the NV to account for the difference in LOT if the 
difference affects price comparability as evidenced by a pattern of 
consistent price differences between sales at the different LOTs in the 
market in which NV is determined.
    Section 351.412(c)(2) of the Department's regulations states that 
the Secretary will determine that sales are made at different LOTs if 
they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). To 
make this determination, the Department reviews such factors as selling 
functions, classes of customer, and the level of selling expenses for 
each type of sale. Different stages of marketing necessarily involve 
differences in selling functions, but differences in selling functions, 
even if substantial, are not alone sufficient to establish a difference 
in the LOT. Similarly, while customer categories such as 
``distributor'' and ``wholesaler'' may be useful in identifying 
different LOTs, they are insufficient in themselves to establish that 
there is a difference in the LOT.
    In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the 
foreign and U.S. markets for each respondent, we examined whether the 
respondent's sales involved different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories, 
and selling functions (or services) offered to each customer or 
customer category, in both markets.
    Dong Won reported third country sales through two channels of 
distribution for its Canadian sales. The first channel of distribution 
was direct sales with two customer categories (i.e., distributors/
wholesalers and retailers). The second channel of distribution was also 
sales to the two customer categories listed above, but through Korean 
trading companies. As Dong Won performs essentially the same selling 
activities at the same degree for third country sales in both of these 
channels of distribution, we considered this one LOT for purposes of 
our antidumping analysis.
    For the U.S. market, Dong Won reported both EP and CEP sales in the 
U.S. market. For EP sales, Dong Won reported the same channels of 
distribution and customer categories as those in the third country 
market (i.e., direct sales to distributors/wholesalers and retailers as 
well as direct sales to distributers/wholesalers and retailers through 
Korean trading companies). As Dong Won performs essentially the same 
selling activities at the same degree for EP sales in both channels of 
distribution, we consider this one LOT. When we compared EP sales to 
third country sales, we determined that the EP sales were made at the 
same LOT as the third country sales. Accordingly, because we calculated 
NV at the same LOT as EP, no LOT adjustment is warranted. See 19 CFR 
351.412 (b)(1).
    Dong Won reported sales through its U.S. affiliate as CEP sales. 
For CEP sales, Dong Won performed fewer selling functions than in the 
third country. In addition, the differences in selling functions 
performed for third country and CEP transactions indicate that third 
country sales involved a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP 
sales. Our preliminary analysis demonstrates that the third country LOT 
is different from, and constitutes a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the CEP LOT because, after making the CEP deductions 
under section 772(d) of the Act, the third country LOT includes 
significantly more selling functions at a higher level of service with 
greater selling expenses than the CEP LOT. Therefore, the third country 
LOT is at a different, more advanced marketing stage than the CEP LOT.
    Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act provides for a CEP offset to NV 
when NV is established at a LOT which constitutes a more advanced LOT 
than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not provide an 
appropriate basis upon which to determine a LOT adjustment. As 
discussed above, in this case we found that there is only one LOT in 
the market in which NV is determined. Thus, it is not possible to 
determine a pattern of price differences on the basis of sales of the 
foreign like product by the producer. Furthermore, we do not have 
information on the record in this proceeding to determine a pattern of 
price differences on the basis of sales of different or broader product 
lines, sales by other companies, or any other reasonable basis. 
Therefore, we conclude that Dong Won is entitled to a CEP offset to NV. 
See Memorandum on LOT for Dong Won, dated January 31, 2002.
    Daelim reported sales through one LOT, consisting of two channels 
of distribution for its home market sales. The first channel of 
distribution was sales through its affiliate in the home market, Living 
Star. The second channel of distribution was direct sales to home 
market customers. As Daelim performs the same selling activities at the 
same degree for home market sales in both channels of distribution, we 
consider this one LOT. See Memorandum on LOT for Daelim, dated January 
31, 2002. Daelim reported only EP sales in the U.S. market. For EP 
sales, Daelim reported one LOT, consisting of one channel of 
distribution.
    Upon review of the record we found that Daelim performed the same 
selling functions (i.e., inventory maintenance, technical advice, 
warranty services, freight & delivery arrangement, and advertising) at 
the same degree for EP sales as compared to home market sales. As such, 
we preliminarily find that there are no differences in the number, 
type, and degree of selling functions Daelim performs in the home 
market as compared to its EP sales. Therefore, because we are 
calculating NV at the same LOT as Daelim's EP sales, no LOT adjustment 
is warranted. See 19 CFR 351.412(b)(1).

Date of Sale

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will 
normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporters's or 
producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless 
satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer 
established the material terms of sale on some other date. For both 
foreign market and U.S. transactions, Daelim and Dong Won reported the 
date of the contract (i.e., purchase order) as the date of sale, i.e., 
the date when the material terms of sale are finalized. The respondents 
note that the purchase order confirms all major terms of sale--price, 
quantity, and product specification--as agreed to by the respondents 
and the customer. Because there is nothing on the record to indicate 
that there were changes in the material terms of sale between the 
purchase order (or revised purchase order) and the invoice, the 
Department preliminarily determines that the purchase order date is the 
most appropriate date to use for the date of sale.

CV

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the respondents' respective COM employed

[[Page 5568]]

in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, the profit 
incurred and realized in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the COM and G&A 
expenses as reported in the CV portion of respondents' questionnaire 
responses. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales 
portion of the respondents' questionnaire responses. For selling 
expenses, we used the average of the selling expenses reported for home 
market sales that survived the cost test, weighted by the total 
quantity of those sales. For profit, we first calculated, based on the 
home market sales that passed the cost test, the difference between the 
home market sales value and home market COP, and divided the difference 
by the home market COP. We then multiplied this percentage by the COP 
for each U.S. model to derive profit.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For those comparison products for which there were sales that 
passed the cost test, we based the respondent's NV on the price at 
which the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in Korea 
(Daelim) or Canada (Dong Won), in the usual commercial quantities, in 
the ordinary course of trade in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 
of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we made 
adjustments to the foreign market price, where appropriate, for 
discounts and movement expenses (inland freight, brokerage and 
handling, and international freight). To account for differences in 
circumstances of sale between the foreign market and the United States, 
where appropriate, we adjusted the foreign market price by deducting 
foreign market direct selling expenses (including credit) and 
commissions and by adding U.S. direct selling expenses (including U.S. 
credit expenses). Where commissions were paid on foreign market sales 
and no commissions were paid on U.S. sales, we increased NV by the 
lesser of either: (1) The amount of commission paid on the foreign 
market sales or (2) the indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. 
sales. See 19 CFR 351.410(e).
    With respect to both CV and foreign market prices, we made 
adjustments, where appropriate, for inland freight, inland insurance, 
and discounts. We also reduced CV and foreign market prices by packing 
costs incurred in the foreign market, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. In addition, we increased CV and foreign 
market prices for U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made further adjustments to foreign market 
prices, when applicable, to account for differences in physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act, we made an adjustment for differences in circumstances of sale 
by deducting foreign market direct selling expenses and adding any 
direct selling expenses associated with U.S. sales not deducted under 
the provisions of section 772(d)(1) of the Act. Finally, in the case of 
Dong Wong, we made a CEP offset adjustment to account for comparing 
U.S. and foreign market sales at different LOTs.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 
1, 2000, through December 31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd.....................................        1.90
Dae-Lim Trading Co., Ltd....................................        1.73
Chefline Corporation........................................       31.23
Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd.....................................       31.23
Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd..............................       31.23
Il Shin Co., Ltd............................................       31.23
Han II Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd........................       31.23
East One Co., Ltd...........................................       31.23
Charming Art Co., Ltd.......................................       31.23
Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd.......................................       31.23
Wonkwang Inc................................................       31.23
Sae Kwang Aluminum Co., Ltd.................................       31.23
Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd.........................       31.23
East West Trading Korea, Ltd................................       31.23
Clad Co., Ltd...............................................       31.23
B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd........................................       31.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of 
this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments 
in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a 
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. All 
case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication 
of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in 
the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the case 
briefs are filed. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting 
written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy 
of the public
    version of any such comments on diskette. A hearing, if requested, 
will be held two days after the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or 
the first business day thereafter.
    The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of the issues raised in any written comments, within 120 days from the 
publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. The final results 
of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping 
duties on entries of merchandise covered by the determination and for 
future deposits of estimated duties. For Daelim and Dong Won, we have 
calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on 
the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the 
examined sales to the entered value of sales used to calculate those 
duties. For all other respondents, the assessment rate will be based on 
the margin percentage identified above. We will direct Customs to 
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis, i.e., less then 
0.5 percent.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review 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

[[Page 5569]]

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.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
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 administrative review and this notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    January 31, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-2870 Filed 2-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S