[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57789-57793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-803]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of final results and partial rescission of antidumping 
duty administrative review and determination not to revoke in part.

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

SUMMARY: On March 6, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools (HFHTs) from the 
People's Republic of China (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). 
The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2000, through January 31, 
2001. 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 Reviews.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas E. Martin or Thomas F. Futtner, 
Office of 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; telephone (202) 482-2305 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. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
part 351 (2001).

Background

    On March 6, 2001, the Department published the preliminary results 
of the administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs 
from the PRC. See 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, 67 FR 10123 (March 6, 2001) 
(Preliminary Results). We conducted verifications of TMC, LMC and 
Huarong after publication of the preliminary results. See Verification 
of the Questionnaire Responses of Tianjin Machinery Import & Export 
Corp., in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Heavy 
Forged Hand Tools from the People's Republic of China (July 23, 2002); 
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of (TMC hammer factory), in 
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Heavy Forged Hand 
Tools from the People's Republic of China (July 23, 2002); Verification 
of the Questionnaire Responses of Liaoning Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Heavy 
Forged Hand Tools from the PRC (July 23, 2002); Verification of the 
Questionnaire Responses of Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation 
in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Heavy Forged Hand 
Tools from the PRC (July 23, 2002). After the verification reports, we 
invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. The 
petitioner and respondents filed case briefs on July 30, 2002, and July 
31, 2002, and rebuttal briefs on August 6, 2002, and August 7, 2002, 
respectively. A hearing was held pursuant to a request from the 
respondents on August 8, 2002. Based on arguments raised in the briefs 
and information obtained by the Department since the preliminary 
results, the Department has made changes to the surrogate values used 
in this review which are discussed more fully in a memorandum dated 
concurrently with this notice (see Changes to Surrogate Values Used in 
Preliminary Results for the Final Results of the Tenth Administrative 
Reviews of Certain HeavyForged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of 
China--February 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001). The Department's 
analysis of the comments raised in the petitioner and respondents'

[[Page 57790]]

briefs and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision 
Memorandum from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import 
Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration (Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this 
notice, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of 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/mattocks; and (4) 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 
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. 
Specifically excluded 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.
    Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes our written description of the scope of the orders is 
dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Review

    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. We preliminarily rescinded the review with respect to 
Jinma in the preliminary results, and we have determined that no change 
to our rescission decision is warranted for these final results. 
Therefore, we are rescinding the hammers/sledges review for 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 review period. We 
preliminarily rescinded the reviews with respect to FMEC in the 
preliminary results, and we have determined that no changes to our 
rescission decisions are warranted for these final results. Therefore, 
we are rescinding the axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and 
picks/mattocks reviews for FMEC.
    In its May 25, 2001, Section A questionnaire response, Huarong 
stated that during the POR it 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 during the POR. (See Memorandum from Thomas 
Martin through Ronald Trentham to The File, dated August 16, 2002). We 
preliminarily rescinded the reviews for these products with respect to 
Huarong and have determined that no changes to our recision decisions 
are warranted for these final results. Therefore, we are rescinding the 
axes/adzes, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks reviews for Huarong.
    In its May 25, 2001, Section A questionnaire response, LMC stated 
that during the POR, it sold only subject merchandise within the bars/
wedges class of merchandise. Information on the record indicates that 
there were no entries of axes/adzes and picks/mattocks from LMC during 
the POR, but record information indicates that LMC made one sale of 
hammers/sledges during the review period. (See Memorandum from Thomas 
Martin through Ronald Trentham to The File, dated August 16, 2002). We 
preliminarily rescinded the reviews with respect to axes/adzes, picks/
mattocks, and hammers/sledges from LMC in the preliminary results, and 
we have determined that no changes to our rescission decisions are 
warranted with respect to axes/adzes and picks/mattocks for these final 
results. Therefore, we are rescinding the axes/adzes and picks/mattocks 
reviews for LMC. With respect to hammers/sledges from LMC, based on our 
determination that LMC failed to report its sale of hammers/sledges 
during the POR, we applied a separate adverse facts available (AFA) 
rate to imports of this merchandise. See Application of Adverse Facts 
Available to Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation (LMC), 
dated concurrently with this notice.
    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. We preliminarily rescinded the 
reviews with respect to SMC in the preliminary results, and we have 
determined that no changes to our rescission decisions are warranted 
for these final results. Therefore, we are rescinding the axes/adzes, 
picks/mattocks, and bars/wedges reviews for SMC.

Intent Not To Revoke

    In its February 27, 2001, review requests, TMC requested revocation 
for all four HFHT orders. In the preliminary results, the Department 
found that TMC did not qualify for revocation for any of the four 
orders because it did not receive zero or de minimis margins for each 
of the reviews upon which it based its revocation request. In its July 
31, 2002, case brief, TMC argued that it satisfies the conditions for 
revocation for two of the orders, hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks. 
Section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations provides 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 consecutive years forming the basis for the revocation 
request. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Determination To Revoke in 
Part, 64 FR 2173, 2175 (January 13, 1999); see also Pure Magnesium From 
Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

[[Page 57791]]

Determination Not to Revoke Order in Part, 64 FR 12977, 12979 (March 
16, 1999); and Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping 
Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 742 (January 
6, 2000). In the instant reviews, TMC's final results are above de 
minimis for the HFHT antidumping duty orders. Consequently, we find 
that TMC does not qualify for revocation of any of the HFHTs 
antidumping duty orders based upon section 351.222(b) of the 
Department's regulations.

Facts Available (FA)

1. Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
or any other person: (A) Withholds information that has been requested 
by the administering authority or the Commission under this title; (B) 
fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission 
of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to 
subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a 
proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the 
administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable 
determination under this title.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (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.
    Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the 
Department has determined that it is appropriate to apply FA for 
purposes of determining the dumping margin for hammers/sledges for LMC 
in the instant review. Pursuant to 776(a)(2)(A), we have determined 
that LMC did not report sales of hammers to the United States during 
the POR as requested by the Department in the antidumping duty 
questionnaire. Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, the Department 
conducted an on-site verification of the information submitted by LMC 
at its sales headquarters in the PRC. After analyzing LMC's record 
information pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, we determined that 
LMC made one sale of hammers/sledges to the United States within the 
POR. Furthermore, we were able to confirm this with Customs' data. See 
Memorandum from Thomas Martin through Ronald Trentham to The File, 
dated August 16, 2002. For further discussion, please see memorandum 
regarding Application of Adverse Facts Available to Liaoning Machinery 
Import & Export Corporation (LMC), dated concurrently with this notice.
    Because LMC failed to provide necessary information regarding its 
U.S. sales of hammers/sledges as requested by the Department, pursuant 
to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we must establish the margin for 
this company based totally on facts otherwise available.

2. Selection of AFA

    We have determined that the AFA rate for hammers/sledges is the 
calculated margin of 36.55 percent, the margin for TMC in the instant 
review, and the highest rate in this proceeding. Because LMC had 
control of the information related to sales of hammers/sledges during 
the POR, yet failed to cooperate to the best of its ability by 
providing this information, we have applied an adverse inference in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act. For a discussion of the 
Department's selection of the AFA rates to be applied to LMC, see the 
memorandum regarding Application of Adverse Facts Available to Liaoning 
Machinery Import & Export Corporation (LMC), dated concurrently with 
this notice.

3. Corroboration

    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 calculated using verified 
information from the instant POR. The source for calculated margin is a 
company-specific administrative determination. Thus, in an 
administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated 
dumping margin from a 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 highest calculated rate calculated in this 
proceeding. 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 LMC's failure to 
cooperate to the best of its ability in this review, we have no reason 
to believe that its dumping margins would be any less than the highest 
calculated rate in this proceeding. This rate ensures that LMC does not 
benefit by failing to cooperate fully. Therefore, we consider the rate 
of 36.55 percent relevant and appropriate to use as AFA for LMC.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to 
these administrative reviews are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. 
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 Record Unit, 
room B-

[[Page 57792]]

099 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a 
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed 
directly on Import Administration's Web site at http//ia.ita.doc.gov. 
The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are 
identical in content.

Separate Rates Determination

    As in the preliminary results, TMC, SMC, Huarong and LMC are 
entitled to separate rates.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    In calculating the final results, the Department has made the 
following changes since the Preliminary Results:
    1. We corrected errors in the calculation of SG&A expenses and 
profit for all reviewed companies.
    2. We corrected errors in the calculation of the surrogate values 
for steel billet and steel scrap.
    3. We applied total AFA to LMC with respect to the hammers/sledges 
order.
    4. We applied reported market economy ocean carrier charges to 
LMC's nonmarket economy (NME) ocean carrier shipments, pursuant to 
current practice.
    5. We adjusted certain Huarong sales for discounts.
    6. We applied as facts available (FA) the highest labor rate 
calculated at verification for bars produced by Huarong.
    7. We applied as FA the highest packing and freight costs reported 
for TMC hammers to all hammers sold by TMC.
    8. We applied a weighted-average of the surrogate values of the 
three types of steel consumed by the verified TMC hammer supplier to 
all of TMC's hammers.
    9. We increased the consumption rate for paint, coal and 
electricity for all TMC hammers.
    10. We corrected errors with respect to TMC's calculated margins.
    11. We corrected the adjustment made to one of TMC's sales.
    12. We corrected TMC's minor errors.

Final Results of Reviews

    We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins 
exist for the period February 1, 2000, through January 31, 2001:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation:.......
    Axes/Adzes--2/1/00-1/31/01.......................               5.08
    Bars/Wedges--2/1/00-1/31/01......................               0.25
    Hammers/Sledges--2/1/00-1/31/01..................              36.55
    Picks/Mattocks--2/1/00-1/31/01...................               3.12
Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation:......
    Hammers/Sledges--2/1/00-1/31/01..................               0.00
Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation:..........
    Bars/Wedges--2/1/00-1/31/01......................              16.22
Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation:......
    Bars/Wedges--2/1/00-1/31/01......................               0.00
    Hammers/Sledges--2/1/00-1/31/01..................              36.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or 
customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this 
review. 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. The Department will issue 
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service 
within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will 
direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates 
against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each 
of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative reviews 
for all shipments of HFHTs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates 
for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above except that, 
for firms whose weighted-average margins are less than 0.5 percent, and 
therefore, de minimis, the Department shall require no deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies with a separate rate not listed above, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published 
for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash 
deposit rates will be the PRC-wide rates; (4) for all non-PRC exporters 
of the subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the rate 
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final 
results of the next administrative reviews.
    This notice also 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 written 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.
    These final results of administrative review are issued and 
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 
Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).


[[Page 57793]]


    Dated: September 3, 2002.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum

Part I--General Issues

1. ``Zeroing'' Methodology
2. Inland Freight Distances
3. Calculation of Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative 
Expenses (SG&A) and Profit
4. Calculation of Marine Insurance

Part II--General Surrogate Value Issues

5. Aberrational Data
6. Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) Classification of Steel Billet
7. Surrogate Value for Tool Handles
8. HTS Classification for Steel Scrap for Scrap Offset
9. HTS Classification of Steel Scrap for Factors of Production

Part III--LMC Comments

10. LMC's Unreported Hammer Sale
11. LMC Ocean Freight
12. Agency Sales
13. LMC Unreported Port Charges

Part IV--Huarong Comments

14. Huarong Unreported Axe/Adze and Pick/Mattock Sales
15. Huarong Unreported Bar/Wedge Sales
16. Huarong Discounts
17. Huarong Inland Freight Distances
18. Huarong Labor Rate
19. Huarong Packing FOP
20. Huarong Steel FOP Input

Part V--TMC Comments

21. TMC Unreported Sales
22. TMC FOP Verification and Application of Adverse Facts Available 
(AFA)
23. Verification of TMC Steel Consumption
24. TMC Scrap Offset
25. TMC Type of Steel
26. TMC Paint Consumption
27. TMC Coal and Electricity Consumption
28. TMC Margin Calculation Errors
29. TMC Inland Freight Distances
30. TMC Inland Freight Calculation Errors
31. TMC Packing
32. TMC Discount
33. TMC Marine Insurance Charges
34. TMC Ocean Freight
35. TMC Steel Tool Handles and Steel Wedges
36. TMC Revocation
37. TMC Minor Errors and Corrections Presented at Verification
[FR Doc. 02-23252 Filed 9-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P