[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40274-40277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14834]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-601]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On February 6, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published the preliminary results of administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel 
cooking ware (cookware) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The review 
covers twenty-six manufacturers of subject merchandise and the period 
January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000. Based on our analysis of 
the comments received, we have made changes in the margin calculations. 
Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The 
final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are 
listed below in the section entitled ``Final Results of the Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Trentham or Tom Futtner, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6320 
or 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 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

Background

    On February 6, 2002, the Department published the preliminary 
results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
cookware from Korea. See Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware 
from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in 
Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 5563 (February 
6, 2002) (Preliminary Results). This review covers twenty-six 
manufacturers of subject merchandise: 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. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2000, through December 
31, 2000.
    We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results of Review. 
On March 8, 2002, we received case briefs from the Stainless Steel 
Cookware Committee (the petitioner), Dong Won, and Daelim. On March 15, 
2002, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner, Daelim and Dong 
Won.
    (The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act).

[[Page 40275]]

Scope of Review

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

Partial Rescission of Review

    In our Preliminary Results, we determined that the following 
companies made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR: Pionex Corporation, Namyang Kitchenflower Co., Ltd., 
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 Ind. Co., Ltd., Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co., and 
Dong Hwa Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. See Preliminary Results, 67 FR at 
5564. Because we received no comments from interested parties on our 
preliminary decision to rescind the review with respect to the above 
companies, we have determined that no changes to our decision to 
rescind are warranted for purposes of these final results. Therefore, 
we are rescinding this review with respect to these manufacturers/
exporters.

Facts Available (FA)

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

1. Application of FA

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that, if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e), facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In this 
review, as described in detail below, the companies referenced below 
failed to provide the necessary information in the form and manner 
requested. Thus, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, the Department 
is required to apply, subject to section 782(d), facts otherwise 
available.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate.
    Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, notwithstanding the 
Department's determination that the submitted information is 
``deficient'' under section 782(d) of the Act, the Department shall not 
decline to consider such information if all of the following 
requirements are satisfied: (1) The information is submitted by the 
established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the 
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable 
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested 
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and 
(5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
    The Department has concluded that, because Chefline Corporation, 
Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd., II 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 Alumnium Co., Ltd., Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., East 
West Trading Korea, Ltd., Clad Co., Ltd., and R.Y. Enterprise, Ltd., 
failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, a determination 
based on total FA is warranted for these companies. For a detailed 
discussion of this analysis, see Preliminary Results, 67 FR at 5565.

2. Section of FA

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
77b(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 
From Thailand; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997). In the Preliminary Results, 
the Department determined that because the 14 manufacturers/exporters 
listed above, wholly failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, they did not act to the best of their respective 
abilities, and therefore an adverse inference is warranted in applying 
FA for these companies.
    For the final results, no interested party comments were submitted 
regarding this issue and we continue to find that the failure of the 14 
manufacturers/exporters listed above to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire in this review demonstrates that these entities failed to 
cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability. Thus, consistent 
with the Department's practice in cases where a respondent fails to 
respond to the Department's questionnaire, in selecting FA for the 14 
manufacturers/exporters listed above, an adverse inference is 
warranted. For a discussion of the application of an adverse inference 
in this case, see Preliminary Results, 67 FR at 5564-5565.
    As adverse FA, we are assigning the highest rate determined for any 
respondent in any segment of this proceeding. This rate is 31.23 
percent. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Certain Stainless Steel Cookware from Korea, 51 FR 42873 (November 26, 
1986). For a discussion on corroboration of the 31.23 percent FA rate 
and for a general discussion of the relevance of the selected FA rate 
for all non-cooperating respondents, see Preliminary Results, 67 FR at 
5565.

[[Page 40276]]

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum (Decision Memorandum) from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, 
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 6, 2002, 
which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which 
parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in 
the Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. 
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this 
review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum 
which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main 
Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision 
Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. the paper copy and electronic version of the Decision 
Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

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

Daelim

    1. We included indirect selling expenses in the calculation of 
constructed value. See Decision Memorandum at comment 1.
    2. We rounded all variable cost of manufacturing values to the 
third decimal point. See Decision Memorandum at comment 2.
    3. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we added to 
the U.S. price the amount of countervailing duty imposed on the subject 
merchandise to offset an export subsidy. See Calculation Memorandum for 
Daelim for the Final Results of the 2000 Administrative Review (June 6, 
2002).

Dong Won

    1. We recalculated constructed export price profit. See Decision 
Memorandum at comment 4.
    2. We have denied Dong Won's duty drawback claim. See Decision 
Memorandum at comment 5.
    3. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act, we added to 
the U.S. Price the amount of countervailing duty imposed on the subject 
merchandise to offset an export subsidy. See Calculation Memorandum for 
Dong Won for the Final Results of the 2000 Administrative Review (June 
6, 2002).

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins 
exist for the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd......................................       1.68
Daelim Trading Co., Ltd......................................       1.26
Chefline Corporation.........................................      31.23
Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd......................................      31.23
Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd...............................      31.23
II 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 Stanless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd...........................      31.23
East West Trading Korea Ltd..................................      31.23
Clad Co., Ltd................................................      31.23
B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd.........................................      31.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. 
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated for Daelim 
and Dong Won importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of 
the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for importer-specific 
sales to the total entered value of the same sales. For the companies 
for whom we applied FA, we based the assessment rate on the facts 
available margin percentage. Where the importer-specific assessment 
rate is above de minimis, we will instruct Customs to assess 
antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of cookware from Korea entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, 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 less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a previous 
review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific 
rate published in the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a 
firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original LTFV 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer 
is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews or the LTFV 
investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the ``all-
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/
destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order 
is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the 
terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 77(I) of the Act.

    Dated: June 6, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

Comments and Responses:

1. Constructed Value (CV) Calculation for Daelim
2. Difference in Merchandise (DIFMER) Percentages for Daelim
3. Dong Won's Model Matching Program
4. Ministerial Error in Calculation of Dong Won's Constructed Export 
Price (CEP) Profit

[[Page 40277]]

5. Duty Drawback Adjustment for Dong Won
6. Dong Won's Cost of Production (COP)

[FR Doc. 02-14834 Filed 6-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M