[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10123-10127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5351]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-803]


Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without 
Handles, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and 
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part and Extension of Final 
Results of Reviews

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

ACTION: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or 
Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part and 
Extension of Final Results of Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by a number of interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools, 
finished or unfinished, with or without handles (HFHTs), from the 
People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is 
February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001.
    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 our final results of 
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 these preliminary review results. Parties who 
submit comments in these proceedings 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: March 6, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Futtner, Esther Chen or Tom 
Martin, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-3814, (202) 482-2305, and 482-3936, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
    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. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).
Background
    On February 19, 1991, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (56 FR 6622) four antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the 
PRC. Imports covered by these orders comprise the following classes or 
kinds of merchandise: (1) hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg 
(3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, 
track tools and wedges (bars/wedges); (3) picks/mattocks; and (4) axes/
adzes. On February 27, 2001, the petitioner, Ames True Temper, 
requested administrative reviews of all four classes or kinds of 
subject merchandise for the following companies: Shandong Machinery 
Import & Export Corporation (SMC), Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import 
& Export Corporation (FMEC), Tianjin Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation (TMC), Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation 
(LMC), and Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation (Huarong). The 
petitioner also requested a review of hammers/sledges from Shandong 
Jinma Industrial Group Co., Ltd. (Jinma). As part of its request for 
reviews, the petitioner also asked the Department to conduct duty 
absorption reviews under 19 U.S.C. Sec.  1675(a)(4).
    On February 27, 2001, four exporters of the subject merchandise 
requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of their 
exports of subject merchandise. Specifically, TMC requested that the 
Department conduct administrative reviews of its exports of HFHTs 
within all four classes or kinds of merchandise. Huarong and LMC 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of their 
exports within the bars/wedges class of merchandise. SMC requested that 
the Department conduct an administrative review of its exports of 
hammers/sledges.
    On March 22, 2001, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of administrative review covering the four orders on HFHTs and the five 
companies described above. See 66 FR 16037. At the time of initiation, 
the Department was conducting a new shipper review of Jinma, which 
ultimately was completed on October 29, 2001, covering hammers/sledges 
and the POR, February 1, 2000 through July 31, 2000. See, 66 FR 54503. 
As a consequence, we initiated this administrative review of hammers/
sledges from Jinma covering only August 1, 2000 through January 31, 
2001 in the POR. Additionally, on September 26, 2001, the Department 
extended the time limits for completion of these preliminary review 
results until no later than February 28, 2002. See, 66 FR 49163.
    The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
    The products covered by these reviews are HFHTs from the PRC, 
comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) hammers 
and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/sledges); (2) 
bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges (bars/wedges); 
(3) picks and mattocks (picks/mattocks); and (4) axes, adzes and 
similar hewing tools (axes/adzes). HFHTs include heads for drilling 
hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks and mattocks, which may or may not 
be painted, which may or may not be finished, or which may or may not 
be imported with handles; assorted bar products and track tools 
including wrecking bars, digging bars and tampers; and steel wood 
splitting wedges. HFHTs are manufactured through a hot forge operation 
in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging 
temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies 
specific to the desired product shape and size. Depending on the 
product, finishing operations may include shot blasting, grinding, 
polishing and painting, and the insertion of handles for handled 
products. HFHTs are currently provided for under the following 
Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 
8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from these 
investigations are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg. (3.33 pounds) 
in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and 
under. The HTS subheadings are provided for

[[Page 10124]]

convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.
Postponement of the Final Determination
    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, requires the Department to make a 
preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the 
anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested and a 
final determination within 120 days after the date on which the 
preliminary determination is published. However, if it is not 
practicable to complete the review within these time periods, section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit 
for the preliminary determination to a maximum of 365 days and for the 
final determination to 180 days (or 300 days if the Department does not 
extend the time limit for the preliminary determination) from the date 
of publication of the of the preliminary determination.
    We determine that it is not practicable to complete the final 
results of this review within the original time limit. Therefore, the 
Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final 
results until no later than August 27, 2002. See, Decision Memorandum 
from Holly A. Kuga to Bernard T. Carreau, dated concurrently with this 
notice.
Partial Rescission
    On March 29, 2001, Jinma informed the Department that it did not 
ship hammers/sledges to the United States during the POR, and requested 
rescission of its administrative review. Information on the record 
indicates that there were no entries of this merchandise from Jinma 
during the POR. Accordingly, we are preliminarily rescinding the review 
with respect to Jinma.
    On March 29, 2001, FMEC requested that the Department rescind its 
administrative reviews with respect to axes/adzes; bars/wedges; 
hammers/sledges; and picks/mattocks, because it had no sales, entries, 
or shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See, FMEC Request 
for Rescission of Administrative Reviews Letter (March 29, 2001). 
Information on the record indicates that there were no entries of 
subject merchandise from FMEC during the POR. Accordingly, we are 
preliminarily rescinding the reviews of all four orders of HFHTs with 
respect to FMEC.
    In their May 25, 2001, Section A questionnaire response, both 
Huarong and LMC stated that during the POR, they sold only subject 
merchandise within the bars/wedges class of merchandise. Information on 
the record indicates that there were no entries of axes/adzes, hammers/
sledges and picks/mattocks from Huarong or LMC during the POR. 
Accordingly, we are preliminarily rescinding the reviews of Huarong and 
LMC under these three HFHTs orders.
    In its May 25, 2001, Section A questionnaire response, SMC stated 
that during the POR, it sold only subject merchandise within the 
hammers/sledges class of merchandise. Information on the record 
indicates that there were no entries of axes/adzes, picks/mattocks and 
bars/wedges from SMC during the POR. Accordingly, we are preliminarily 
rescinding the reviews of SMC with respect to these three orders.
Intent Not To Revoke
    In its February 27, 2001 review requests, TMC asked the Department 
to revoke it from the four HFHT orders. Section 351.222(b)(2) of the 
Department's regulations notes that the Secretary may revoke an 
antidumping order in part if the Secretary concludes, inter alia, that 
one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the 
merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three 
consecutive years. Thus, in determining whether a requesting party is 
entitled to a revocation inquiry, the Department must determine that 
the party received zero or de minimis margins for the three years 
forming the basis for the revocation request. See, Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not 
to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From the 
Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 (January 6, 2000). TMC provided a 
certification pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e) indicating that it based 
its revocation request on the results of the instant review and the 
preceding two administrative reviews. However, TMC did not receive for 
any of the HFHT orders zero or de minimis margins in each of the 
reviews upon which it based its revocation request. See, e.g., Heavy 
Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China; Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 50499 (August 
18, 2000). Consequently, we preliminarily find that TMC does not 
qualify for revocation of the orders based upon section 351.222(b) of 
the Department's regulations.
Duty Absorption
    On February 27, 2001, the petitioner requested that the Department 
conduct a duty absorption inquiry in order to determine whether 
antidumping duties had been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter 
subject to the order. However, the Department's invitation for such 
requests only applies to certain administrative reviews of orders that 
were in effect before January 1995. For transition orders as defined in 
section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act, i.e., orders in effect as of 
January 1, 1995, section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's antidumping 
regulations provides that the Department will make a duty-absorption 
determination, if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 
1996 or 1998. This approach ensures that interested parties will have 
the opportunity to request a duty-absorption determination prior to the 
time for a sunset review of the order under section 751(c) on entries 
for which the second and fourth years following an order have already 
passed. Because the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC have 
been in effect since 1991, they are ``transition orders'' in accordance 
with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. However, since the instant 
administrative reviews were not initiated in 1996 or 1998, the 
Department will not make duty absorption determinations.
Separate Rates Determination
    To establish whether a company operating in a non-market economy 
(NME) 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), and 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 test, NME firms 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 their 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 independent of the

[[Page 10125]]

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 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 the final results of the 1999-2000 reviews of HFHTs, the 
Department granted separate rates to TMC and SMC, but not to Huarong 
and LMC. See, Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 66 FR 
48026 (September 17, 2001). It is the Department's policy to evaluate 
separate rates questionnaire responses each time a respondent makes a 
separate rates claim, regardless of any separate rate the respondent 
received in the past. See, Manganese Metal From the People's Republic 
of China, Final Results and Partial Recision of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12441 (March 13, 1998). In the instant 
reviews, these companies submitted complete responses to the separate 
rates section of the Department's questionnaire. The evidence submitted 
in these reviews by TMC, SMC, Huarong and LMC included government laws 
and regulations on corporate ownership, business licences, and 
narrative information regarding the companies' operations and selection 
of management. This evidence supports a finding of a de jure absence of 
government control over export activities: (1) there are no controls on 
exports of subject merchandise, such as export quotas applied to the 
subject merchandise and no export license is required for exports of 
the subject merchandise to the United States; and (2) the subject 
merchandise does not appear on any government list regarding export 
provisions or exporting licensing. The companies have also shown de 
facto absence of government control over exports in their questionnaire 
responses: (1) each company sets its own export prices independent of 
the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent 
decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; 
(3) each exporter has a general manager, branch manager or division 
manager with the authority to negotiate and bind the company in an 
agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the board of 
directors or company employees, and the general manager appoints the 
deputy managers and the manager of each department and (5) foreign 
currency does not need to be sold to the government. The Department 
preliminarily determines that all four respondents have established 
primae facie that they qualify for separate rates under Silicon Carbide 
and Sparklers.
Normal Value
    For exports from NMEs, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that 
the Department shall determine NV using a factors of production (FOP) 
methodology if (1) the subject merchandise is exported from a NME 
country, and (2) available information does not permit the calculation 
of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed 
value. Section 351.408 of the Department's regulations sets forth the 
Department's methodology for calculating the NV of merchandise from NME 
countries. In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, 
the PRC has been treated as a NME. Since none of the parties to these 
proceedings contested such treatment in these reviews, we calculated NV 
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act and section 351.408 of the 
Department's regulations.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOP utilized 
in producing HFHTs include, but are not limited to: (A) hours of labor 
required; (B) quantities of raw materials employed; (C) amounts of 
energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) representative capital 
costs, including depreciation. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, the Department valued the FOP, to the extent possible, using 
the costs of the FOP in a market economy that is (A) at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC; and (B) a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. India is comparable to the PRC in 
terms of per capita gross national product, the growth rate in per 
capita income, and the national distribution of labor. Consequently we 
determined that India is the country most comparable to the PRC among 
the significant exporting countries of comparable merchandise. See, 
Memorandum From Jeffrey May, Director, Office of Policy, to Holly Kuga, 
Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, dated February 28, 2002, 
which is on file in the CRU-Public File.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of 
calculating NV, we attempted to value FOP using the Indian surrogate 
values that were in effect during the POR. Where contemporaneous data 
was not available to the Department, the most recent data was used, and 
adjusted to account for inflation or deflation between the effective 
period and the POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation 
adjustments for all factor values, except labor, using the wholesale 
price indices (WPI) for India as published in the International 
Monetary Fund's (IMF) publication, International Financial Statistics. 
We valued the FOP as follows:
    (1) We valued direct materials used to produce HFHTs, packing 
materials, steel scrap generated from the production of HFHTs, and coal 
used for energy using, where available, the rupee per kilogram value of 
imports that entered India during February 2000 through January 2001, 
as published in the respective volumes of the Monthly Statistics of the 
Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports (Indian Import Statistics). 
See, Surrogate Value Memorandum. We valued steel for SMC's four pound 
hammers using the company's average reported purchase price for steel 
purchased from a market economy vendor using a market economy currency, 
as SMC claims to have used this steel for all of its four pound 
hammers. See, SMC's Additional Response to the Department's December 6, 
2001 Supplemental Questionnaire (January 25, 2002) at 3.
    (2) We valued labor using a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). This rate is identified on the 
Import Administration's web site. (See, http://ia.ita.doc.gov.wages/). 
See, Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    (3) We derived ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (SG;&A) expenses, and profit using information reported 
for 1999-2000, for 1,914 Public Limited Companies, in the Reserve Bank 
of India Bulletin for June 2001. From this information, we were able to 
calculate factory overhead as a percentage of direct materials, labor, 
and energy expenses; SG&A expenses as a percentage of the total cost of 
manufacturing (TOTCOM); and profit as a percentage of the sum of the 
TOTCOM and SG&A expenses. See, Calculation for the Preliminary Results 
of the Tenth Administrative Reviews of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, 
Finished or Unfinished, with or Without Handles (``HFHTS''), from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC'') Covering the Period of Review 
(``POR'') February 1, 2000

[[Page 10126]]

Through January 31, 2001; Liaoning Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation.
    (4) We valued electricity using 2000-2001 data from the Annual 
Report on The Working of State Electricity Boards & Electricity 
Departments, published in June 2001 by the Power & Energy Division of 
the Planning Commission of the Government of India. The average tariff 
rate for Indian industry was applied (as opposed to the commercial 
tariff rate, or agricultural tariff rate). See, Surrogate Value 
Memorandum.
    (5) We used the following sources to value truck and rail freight 
services incurred to transport direct materials, packing materials, and 
coal from the suppliers of the inputs to the factories producing HFHTs:
    Truck Freight: We valued road freight services using the rates used 
by the Department in the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Bulk Aspirin From the People's Republic of China, 65 
FR 33805 (May 25, 2000). See, Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    Rail Freight: We valued rail freight services using the 1999-2000 
rate found in the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, July 2001. See, 
Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    Production ``Caps: TMC, Huarong, SMC, and LMC have 
reported production ``caps'' for use in determining certain factor 
input amounts. A production ``cap'' is an estimate of the amount of 
factor input the company used to make the product in question. TMC 
reported ``caps'' for the following inputs: steel bar, billet and 
railroad scrap, paint, unskilled labor, skilled labor, and unskilled 
packing labor. LMC reported ``caps'' for estimating scrap railroad 
wheels, steel bars, paint, unskilled labor, skilled labor, and 
unskilled packing labor inputs. SMC reported ``caps'' for estimating 
paint, lubricating oil, varnish paint, resin glue, unskilled labor, 
skilled labor, unskilled packing labor, electricity and coal inputs. 
Huarong reported ``caps'' for the following inputs: steel billets, 
paint, unskilled labor, skilled labor, electricity, coal and unskilled 
packing labor. The Department notes that TMC, LMC, and Huarong 
initially reported using ``caps'' for coal and electricity, but finally 
chose to allocate these two factor inputs based upon steel weight.
    The Department has accepted ``caps'' in the past only when the 
``caps'' were found to reasonably reflect actual consumption, and has 
rejected them when found to be otherwise. See, Natural Bristle 
Paintbrushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China; Final 
Review Results of Antidumping Review, 64 FR 27506 (May 20, 1999) 
(Natural Bristle Paintbrushes). In Natural Bristle Paintbrushes, at 
verification, the respondent attempted to duplicate reported ``cap'' 
figures, but did not succeed. The respondent asserted that the figures 
were derived from a standard cost system, but this system was not 
explained to the verifiers, who finally rejected the ``caps.'' See, 
Natural Bristle Paintbrushes, 64 at 27514. Similarly, while the 
Department has found reported ``caps'' reasonable in past segments of 
this proceeding, the Department also found that there were 
discrepancies between the reported ``cap'' amounts and the figures 
presented at verification of the information submitted during the in 
the 1997-1998 administrative review. Because the Department could not 
deduce how the information in the questionnaire was derived, the 
Department did not consider the information verified. See, Heavy Forged 
Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results and Partial Recision of 
Antidumping Duty Admin. Reviews, 64 FR 43659, 43665-43666 (August 11, 
1999). For these preliminary review results the Department has accepted 
the respondents reported ``caps'' for the purpose of calculating any 
antidumping margins. The Department intends to conduct verifications of 
the responding companies, and the use of ``caps'' in final review 
results will depend upon our verification findings.
Export Price
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated an export price (EP) for sales to the United States for all 
respondents because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made 
before the date of importation and the use of constructed export price 
(CEP) was not otherwise warranted. When appropriate, we made deductions 
from the selling price to unaffiliated parties for ocean freight, 
marine insurance and foreign inland freight. Each of these services, 
with one exception, was either provided by a NME vendor or paid for 
using a NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction for these movement 
charges on surrogate values. See, Normal Value section of this notice. 
The one exception referred to above concerns ocean freight. TMC used 
market economy ocean freight vendors for a substantial portion of its 
U.S. sales and paid for this service using a market economy currency. 
To value ocean freight for TMC's U.S. sales, we used a weighted average 
of the firm's market economy ocean freight expenses. Huarong, on the 
other hand, ships subject merchandise with NME carriers. With respect 
to LMC, we used the actual reported ocean freight expenses for the 
market economy shipments. SMC ships through a freight forwarder, and 
has no knowledge of the actual ocean carriers on which its merchandise 
is shipped. With respect to SMC, the Department will assume that SMC's 
carriers are NME carriers in the absence of information to the contrary 
and base all of its ocean freight on surrogate values. For SMC and 
Huarong, we valued ocean freight using the official tariff rates 
published for hand tools by the Federal Maritime Commission. Similarly, 
for LMC, we valued ocean freight for freight shipped on NME carriers 
using these official tariff rates. If port-specific rates were not 
available, we used the regional rates calculated in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brake Drums and Brake 
Rotors From the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 9160 (February 28, 
1997) (``Brake Drums and Brake Rotors''). We converted per container 
rates by dividing the container rate by 18 metric tons.
    We valued marine insurance using the rate of 141.01 Rs/MT which was 
reported in the public version of the questionnaire response placed on 
the record in Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 48184 (September 9, 1998) (India Wire 
Rod). See, Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary Results of the 
Tenth Administrative Reviews of Certain Heavy Forged Hand Tools From 
the People's Republic of China - February 1, 2000 through January 31, 
2001 (Surrogate Value Memorandum). We valued foreign brokerage and 
handling using the rate of 1519.32 Rs/MT, also reported in the 
questionnaire response in India Wire Rod. The source used to value 
inland freight is identified in the Normal Value section of this 
notice.
    To account for inflation or deflation between the time period that 
the freight, brokerage, and insurance rates were in effect and the POR, 
we adjusted the rates using the WPI for India from the IMF publication, 
International Financial Statistics. See, Surrogate Value Memorandum.
Margins
    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period February 1, 2000 through January 
31, 2001:

[[Page 10127]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation...........
   Bars/Wedges 2/1/00-1/31/01........................               3.57
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation.......
   Bars/Wedges 2/1/00-1/31/01........................               1.61
Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation........
   Axes/Adzes 2/1/00-1/31/01.........................              10.41
   Bars/Wedges 2/1/00-1/31/01........................              25.95
   Hammers/Sledges 2/1/00-1/31/01....................               9.85
   Picks/Mattocks 2/1/00-1/31/01.....................              89.16
Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation.......
   Hammers/Sledges 2/1/00-1/31/01....................               0.00
PRC-wide rates:......................................
   Axes/Adzes 2/1/00-1/31/01.........................              18.72
   Bars/Wedges 2/1/00-1/31/01........................              47.88
   Hammers/Sledges 2/1/00-1/31/01....................              27.71
   Picks/Mattocks 2/1/00-1/31/01.....................              98.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in reaching these preliminary results within ten 
days of the date of announcement of these preliminary review results. 
We will issue a memorandum detailing the dates of a hearing, if any, 
and deadlines for submission of case briefs/written comments and 
rebuttal briefs or rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues 
raised in such briefs or comments, after verification. Parties who 
submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a 
statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a 
table of authorities. Further, the Department requests that parties 
submitting written comments provide the Department with a diskette 
containing the public version of those comments.
    Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a 
hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that an 
interested party requests such a hearing. Interested parties who wish 
to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must 
submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this 
notice. Requests should specify the number of participants and provide 
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be 
limited to issues raised in the briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results of these administrative reviews, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in interested party comments, 
within 180 days of publication of these preliminary results.
    The final results of these reviews shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties.
Duty Assessment Rates
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), for each HFHT order, we have calculated importer-
specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the 
total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales 
to the total entered value of those same sales. In order to estimate 
the entered value, we subtracted international movement expenses from 
the gross sales value. These importer-specific rates will be assessed 
uniformly on all entries of each importer that were made during the 
POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106 (c)(2), we will instruct Customs 
to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 
0.5 percent. Upon completion of its Final Results, the Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.
Cash Deposit Requirements
    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for 
all shipments of HFHTs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this 
notice, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash 
deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above which have 
separate rates (Huarong, LMC, SMC and TMC) will be the rates for those 
firms established in the final results of these administrative reviews 
for the classes or kinds of merchandise listed above; (2) for any 
previously reviewed PRC or non-PRC exporter with a separate rate not 
covered in these reviews, the cash deposit rates will be the company-
specific rates established for the most recent period; (3) for all 
other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rates will be the PRC&wide rates; 
and (4) the cash deposit rates for non&PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise from the PRC will be the rates applicable to the PRC 
supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative reviews.
Notification to Interested Parties
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) 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.We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    February 28, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-5351 Filed 3-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S