[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11670-11673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6290]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-867]


Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the 
People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey, Brandon Farlander, and 
Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-1102, (202) 482-0182, and (202) 482-3434, 
respectively.

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 (``URAA''). In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's 
regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 C.F.R. Part 351 
(2001).

Amendment of Final Determination

    On February 4, 2002, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') issued its final determination and found that ARG 
windshields from the People's Republic of China (``PRC'') are being, or 
are 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 Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive 
Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 
FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) (Final Determination).
    On February 14, 2002, respondents Fuyao Glass Industry Group 
Company, Ltd. (``FYG'') and Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. 
(``Xinyi''), and Petitioners timely filed ministerial error 
allegations, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2). On February 19, 2002, 
respondent FYG and Petitioners timely filed rebuttal comments on the 
alleged ministerial errors.
    The Department is amending the Final Determination in the 
antidumping investigation of ARG windshields from the PRC for FYG, 
Xinyi, Shenzhen Benxun Auto-Glass Co., Ltd. (``Benxun''), Changchun 
Pilkington Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (``Changchun''), Guilin Pilkington 
Safety Glass Co., Ltd. (``Guilin''), Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington Safety 
Glass Co., Ltd. (``Wuhan''), and TCG International (``TCGI'').

Scope of the Investigation

    As addressed in the final determination, interested parties 
requested that the Department clarify whether automotive replacement 
glass windshields (``ARG'') windshields for buses, farm and heavy 
machinery are included in the scope of this investigation. Based on the 
information received, we clarified that ARG windshields for buses, farm 
and heavy machinery are included in the scope of this investigation. 
For further discussion, please see the Issues and Decision Memorandum 
for the Scope Clarification for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of 
China: July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2001 from Edward C. Yang, 
Director, Office 9 to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, dated January 24, 2002.
    The products covered by this investigation are 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 (e.g., 
passenger 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.

Ministerial Error

    A ministerial error is defined in section 351.224(f) of our 
regulations as

[[Page 11671]]

``an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, 
clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the 
like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the 
Secretary considers ministerial.'' Section 351.224(e) of our 
regulations provides that we ``will analyze any comments received and, 
if appropriate . . . correct any ministerial error by amending the 
final determination. . . .'' After reviewing interested parties' 
allegations we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that 
the Final Determination includes ministerial errors discussed below.

FYG's Allegation of Ministerial Errors

Updated Market Economy Prices
    Comment 1: FYG alleges that the Department made a ministerial error 
by using outdated market price values for ink, silver and mirror 
buttons and using a surrogate value for solder even though FYG reported 
market economy purchases of solder. FYG maintains that the Department 
failed to apply the updated market economy values for these inputs, as 
reported in FYG's November 16, 2001 submission.
    Petitioners did not provide rebuttal comments.
    Department's Position: We agree with FYG. Following the Preliminary 
Determination, FYG provided updated market economy values to the 
Department which the Department inadvertently failed to use for the 
Final Determination. It is the Department's practice to use the most 
updated factor value information available. For the amended final 
determination, we used updated market economy prices for the inputs 
ink, silver, mirror buttons and solder. See Analysis Memo for the 
Amended Final Determination of Automotive Replacement Glass (``ARG'') 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China: Xinyi Automobile Glass 
(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (``Xinyi'') and Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., 
Ltd. (``FYG'') (Amended Final Analysis Memo) from Brandon Farlander and 
Stephen Bailey to Robert Bolling dated March 6, 2002.

Xinyi's Allegations of Ministerial Errors

Incorrect Margin Calculation Results
    Comment 2: Xinyi argues that it calculated a margin using all 
relevant documents provided by the Department issued for the Final 
Determination and that the margin Xinyi calculated is fifty-five one-
hundredths of a percent lower than the margin calculation generated by 
the Department. Xinyi argues that the final margin should be 3.15 
percent as compared to 3.70 percent as calculated by the Department in 
its Final Determination.
    Petitioners argue that Xinyi's ministerial error submission does 
not fulfill the conditions necessary for correction of ministerial 
errors contained in section 351.224 of the regulations. Petitioners 
argue that Xinyi did not identify any error of omission or commission 
in its request, which is required according to section 351.224(4)(d). 
Petitioners argue that it is Xinyi's responsibility, and not the 
Department's, to identify any errors in the Final Determination.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Xinyi. Xinyi has not 
alleged an error, specific or otherwise, by the Department in the 
Department's calculation of Xinyi's margin that would fall within the 
meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f). Xinyi argues that, because it obtained 
different margin results then those calculated by the Department, the 
Department's margin calculations must contain clerical errors. Xinyi 
has provided no official record evidence that the Department has made a 
clerical error in Xinyi's margin calculation program or has Xinyi 
provided an appropriate correction pursuant to the requirements of 19 
CFR 351.224(d).
Aberrational Indian Import Statistics Data
    Comment 3: Xinyi argues that the Department incorrectly included 
aberrational Indian Import Statistics data for colored float glass 
imports from the United Arab Emirates in September 2000, aberrational 
values for colored float glass imports from Belgium in September and 
December 2000, and aberrational values for colored float glass imports 
from Taiwan in August and December 2000. Xinyi argues that the import 
data from these countries and the values for the specific months listed 
above are aberrationally high when compared to the average colored 
float glass surrogate value calculated by the Department.
    Petitioners argue that Xinyi's claims that certain Indian Import 
Statistics data are aberrationally high is a new substantive 
methodological argument. Petitioners contend that this new argument is 
subject to comment and rebuttal by interested parties to the 
investigation and to a final determination by the Department. 
Additionally, Petitioners argue that Xinyi had ample opportunities to 
argue that there were aberrations in the Indian Import Statistics data, 
but did not do so.
    Department Position: We disagree with Xinyi that this is a 
ministerial error. The Department included Indian imports from Belgium, 
Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates as set forth in Attachment 4 of 
the Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination. This 
remained unchanged for the Final Determination. Therefore, the 
allegation is not a ministerial error pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(f).

Petitioner's Allegations of Ministerial Errors for FYG

Colored Float Glass Surrogate Value from the Indian Import Statistics
    Comment 4: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error by failing to apply the Indian surrogate value used 
for colored float glass, exclusive of Thailand and Korea. Citing to the 
Department's Factors of Production Valuation Memorandum for the Final 
Determination (Factor Value Memo), Petitioners argue that the 
Department determined in the Final Determination to exclude Thai and 
Korean prices for all inputs in its surrogate value calculations and 
also in determining market economy purchases. Petitioners maintain that 
the Department's failure to apply the revised Indian surrogate value 
for the colored float glass resulted in an understatement of the value 
of a certain type of windshield. Because the type of windshield is 
business proprietary information, see the Amended Final Analysis Memo 
for a further discussion of this issue.
    FYG points out that the windshield in question is comprised of two 
types of float glass. FYG argues, therefore, that Petitioners' 
methodology of using a weighted-average of only one value for the 
windshield is distortive.
    Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners. In the Final 
Determination, the value of colored float glass, the second pane of 
glass used for the windshield in question, was derived by the 
Department using FYG's market economy purchases. However, the 
Department inadvertently failed to exclude market economy purchases 
from Thailand and Korea from FYG's market economy purchases of colored 
float glass. As the Department stated in Comment 1 of the final Issues 
and Decision Memorandum, it would disregard prices that the Department 
has reason to believe or suspect are distorted by subsidies, including 
FYG's market economy purchases from Thailand and Korea. See Final 
Determination, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. When market economy purchases of 
colored float glass from Thailand and

[[Page 11672]]

Korea are excluded, the Department must then use Indian Import 
Statistics to value colored float glass because FYG did not purchase 
colored float glass from other market economy countries. Therefore, for 
the amended final determination, we will use the Indian surrogate value 
for colored glass less purchases of Thai and Korean float glass. See 
Amended Final Analysis Memo.
International Freight Container Rate
    Comment 5: Petitioners argue that the Department erred in the Final 
Determination in its calculation of ocean freight by using a freight 
rate for a 20-foot container instead of a freight rate for a 40-foot 
container, which is the container size used by FYG in transporting 
subject merchandise. Citing to the Factor Value Memo, Petitioners 
maintain that the Department rejected, in part, FYG's methodology for 
freight and used a freight rate provided by the Federal Maritime 
Commission. Petitioners contend that the Department used a basic 
freight rate for a 20-foot shipping container, to which was added a 
fuel surcharge and destination delivery charge. Petitioners assert that 
their October 29, 2001 Surrogate Values Submission provided evidence on 
the record to value a 40-foot shipping container. Petitioners further 
contend that the Department should either: (1) match the particular 
ocean rate to the closest port of entry for each shipment; or (2) apply 
an average of the ocean rates for all ports through which the non-
market economy (``NME'') shipments entered for which surrogate ocean 
freight is being assigned.
    FYG agrees with Petitioners that the Department incorrectly used a 
20-foot container rate when the Department should have used a 40-foot 
container rate to value ocean shipping. However, FYG argues that 
Petitioners' suggested ocean freight value was rejected by the 
Department for the final determination. FYG suggests that the 
Department use the actual freight rates paid for the ocean segment of 
the overall transportation charge, which are reported in Exhibit 19-A 
of FYG's verification report. See Memorandum from Stephen Bailey, Sarah 
Ellerman, case analysts and Emily Lawson, Office of Chief Counsel 
through James C. Doyle, Program Manager to the File: Verification of 
Sales and Factors of FYG in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of 
China (FYG Verification Report) dated December 19, 2001, Exhibit19-A. 
FYG also suggests the Department convert the 20-foot container charge 
to a 40-foot container charge by using a conversion rate presented in 
their October 29, 2001 submission.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees that this is a 
ministerial error. In our analysis memorandum for FYG, the Department 
stated that it would value shipping containers based on a length of 40 
feet but instead valued it on a 20-foot container rate. See Analysis 
for the Final Determination of Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields 
(``ARG'') from the People's Republic of China: Fuyao Glass Industry 
Group Co., Ltd., (``FYG'') (February 1, 2002) (FYG's Final Analysis 
Memo). In order for the Department to correct this error (i.e., obtain 
a 40-foot shipping container base rate), we must adjust the 20-foot 
base container rate to reflect a 40-foot base container rate. In this 
instance, we are using information provided by FYG to convert a 20-foot 
base container rate to a 40-foot base container rate to determine a 
surrogate value for ocean freight. By reviewing a contract between FYG 
and a market economy shipper, reviewed at verification, and using 
information provided by FYG in its October 29, 2001 submission, the 
Department determined that the rate charged for a 40-foot container is 
33 percent higher than the rate charged for a 20-foot container. See 
FYG Verification Report, Exhibit 19-A. The Department has multiplied 
this conversion rate, 1.33, by the charge for a 20 foot container to 
arrive at a charge for a 40 foot container. See Amended Final Analysis 
Memo. FYG's methodology allows the Department to continue to use 
information from the Federal Maritime Commission, as used in the Final 
Determination. The Department did not use Petitioners' proposed 
correction or FYG's other proposed correction because both change the 
ocean freight methodology used by the Department in the Final 
Determination.
Wholesale Price Index Base for Domestic Inland Insurance
    Comment 6: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error by using a 1992 Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') base 
for data collected from the period November 1991 through April 1992 in 
calculating an average value in Indian rupees per metric ton value for 
domestic inland insurance, as opposed to using a WPI that corresponds 
to the period for the Indian surrogate value, which is November 1991 
through April 1992. Citing the Department's 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, 66 FR 53776 (October 24, 2001) (Amended Preliminary 
Determination), Petitioners argue that the Department stated that it 
considered this a methodological error at the preliminary determination 
and would consider this error for the final determination. 
Additionally, Petitioners contend that the Department did not address 
this issue in the Final Determination. Furthermore, Petitioners assert 
that they provided International Financial Statistics (``IFS'') for the 
period November 1991 through April 1992 in their September 24, 2001 
submission which contain all relevant IFS data necessary for the 
Department to calculate an accurate WPI for the period in question. 
Petitioners also argue that the WPI for the period November 1991 
through April 1992 should be adjusted to account for the re-basing of 
the Indian WPI, which occurred in June 1994 and June 1999.
    FYG argues that Petitioners' allegation is not a ministerial error 
but a methodological argument. Also, FYG also asserts that Petitioners' 
methodology for determining the correct inflation rate is flawed 
because it incorrectly adjusts the WPI to account for re-basing. FYG 
also argues that the correct inflation rate adjustment that it 
calculated results in basically the same rate used by the Department in 
the Final Determination.
    Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners. The Department 
intended to correct this error in the Final Determination. See Amended 
Preliminary Determination at 53778. However, we inadvertently failed to 
make this correction in the Final Determination. Therefore, the 
Department is using the Indian WPI for the period November 1991 through 
April 1992 from IFS data. Additionally, the Department has adjusted the 
WPI to account for the re-basing which occurred in June 1994, by 
multiplying the WPI for the period November 1991 through April 1992 by 
0.70, which is the percentage change in the WPI between May 1994 and 
August 1994. The Department has also adjusted the WPI to account for 
the re-basing which occurred in June 1999, by multiplying the WPI by 
0.61, which is the percentage change in the WPI between May 1999 and 
August 1999. See Amended Final Analysis Memo.
Weight Conversion for Other Scrap Glass
    Comment 7: Petitioners argue that the Department made a ministerial 
error by inadvertently converting a value to a kilogram basis that was 
already being

[[Page 11673]]

consumed on a kilogram basis. Citing to FYG's Verification Report at 
14, Petitioners allege that FYG reported that ``Other Scrap Glass'' was 
reported on a kilogram basis, not in square meters as the Department 
assumed.
    FYG argues that the Department was correct in converting a kilogram 
value into a meters squared value because FYG's reported consumption 
rate for the ``Other Scrap Glass'' offset was in meters squared.
    Department's Position: We disagree with Petitioners. The Department 
verified that FYG reported that ``the big pieces of scrap generated 
from the cutting process . . . is sold on a square meter basis.'' See 
FYG Verification Report at 14. Therefore, for the final determination, 
the Department calculated a surrogate value for ``Other Scrap Glass'' 
by multiplying the Indian surrogate value, which is reported in 
kilograms, by a kilograms-to-square-meter conversion rate which is 
based on the amount of kilograms in a square meter of glass. See FYG's 
Final Analysis Memo, dated February 1, 2002.

Petitioner's Allegations of Ministerial Errors for Xinyi

Plastic Adhesives Surrogate Value from the Indian Import Statistics
    Comment 8: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error by deducting the value and quantity of Switzerland's 
exports of plastic adhesives (rather than Thailand's value and quantity 
of exports) to India from the Indian Import Statistics.
    Xinyi did not provide rebuttal comments.
    Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners. The Department 
intended to deduct, from Indian Import Statistics, imports of plastic 
adhesives from Thailand, but instead deducted imports of plastic 
adhesives from Switzerland. As the Department stated in Comment 1 of 
the Issues and Decision Memo, we will disregard prices that we have 
reason to believe or suspect are distorted by subsidies, including the 
values from Thailand and Korea. Therefore, for the amended final 
determination, we will deduct Thailand's exports of plastic adhesives 
(rather than Switzerland's exports) to India from the Indian Import 
Statistics in our surrogate value calculation for plastic adhesives. 
See Amended Final Analysis Memo.

Petitioner's Allegations of Ministerial Errors for FYG and Xinyi

Adhesive Sheets (Tape) Calculation Error
    Comment 9: Petitioners allege that the Department made a 
ministerial error by including two minus signs when deducting Korean 
imports of adhesive sheets (tape) from the quantity and value of Indian 
Import Statistics. Petitioners argue that this error resulted in an 
understatement of the value of adhesive sheets (tape).
    FYG agrees with Petitioners that the Department incorrectly 
included a double minus sign in its calculation sheet which resulted in 
counting the Indian imports of Korean adhesive sheets (tape) twice in 
the surrogate value calculation. However, FYG argues that the per unit 
surrogate value provided by the Petitioners is not correct.
    Department's Position: We agree with Petitioners and FYG that this 
is a ministerial error. The Department intended to deduct, from Indian 
Import Statistics, imports of adhesive sheets from Korea. However, the 
Department double counted imports of adhesive sheets from Korea by 
inadvertently including two minus signs in the calculation sheet, which 
resulted in Korean imports being added twice instead of being deducted. 
As stated in Comment 8, the Department intended to disregard prices 
from Korea. The Department agrees with FYG that Petitioners' per unit 
surrogate value, while properly deducting Korean imports of adhesive 
sheets from Indian Import Statistics, is incorrect due to addition 
errors. Therefore, for the amended final determination, we will remove 
one minus sign in the calculation sheet for Korean exports of adhesive 
sheets (tape) to correct for this error. See Amended Final Analysis 
Memo.

Amended Final Determination

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the final 
determination 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 Weighted
                     Exporter/Manufacturer                       Average Margin Percent      Revised Weighted
                                                                       for Final          Average Margin Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYG...........................................................                     9.67                    11.80
Xinyi.........................................................                     3.70                     3.71
Benxun........................................................                     8.22                     9.84
Changchun.....................................................                     8.22                     9.84
Guilin........................................................                     8.22                     9.84
Wuhan.........................................................                     8.22                     9.84
TCGI..........................................................                     8.22                     9.84
China-Wide....................................................                   124.50                   124.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(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.

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(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 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    March 6, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-6290 Filed 3-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S