[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1734-1735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-750]
[[Page 1734]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-827]
Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China;
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and partial rescission of
antidumping duty administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 1, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils from the
People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of December 21,
1994 through November 30, 1995. The Department is now rescinding this
review in part with respect to respondents who had no shipments of the
subject merchandise during the period of review, including Guangdong
Provincial Stationery & Sporting Goods Import and Export Corporation
(Guangdong), and China First Pencil Company, Ltd. (China First). We are
basing the preliminary results on ``facts available'' for those
companies that did not respond to our questionnaire.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Stolz or Thomas Futtner, Office
of Antidumping Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone (202) 482-4474/3814.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Departments regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are certain cased pencils of
any shape or dimension which are writing and/or drawing instruments
that feature cores of graphite or other materials encased in wood and/
or man-made materials, whether or not decorated and whether or not
tipped (e.g., with erasers, etc.) in any fashion, and either sharpened
or unsharpened. The pencils subject to this review are classified under
subheading 9609.10.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (``HTSUS''). Specifically excluded from the scope of this
investigation are mechanical pencils, cosmetic pencils, pens, non-case
crayons (wax), pastels, charcoals, and chalks. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.
Background
On November 8, 1994 the Department issued its final determination
of sales at less-than-fair value (LTFV) on certain cased pencils from
the PRC (59 FR 55625). In it, we calculated zero margins for certain
producer/exporter combinations: China First/Company A and Guangdong/
Company B. China First/Any other manufacturer received a rate of 44.66
percent (formerly called the all others rate, now the PRC rate) and
Guangdong/Any other manufacturer also received a rate of 44.66 percent.
We stated that, consistent with Jia Farn Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v.
United States, 817 F.Supp. 969 (CIT 1993) (``Jia Farn''), we would
exclude from the application of the order any imports of ``subject
merchandise sold by the exporter and manufactured by that specific
producer. Merchandise that is sold by the exporter but manufactured by
other producers will be subject to the order * * *'' (59 FR at 55631).
These exclusions based on exporter/producer combinations are consistent
with 19 CFR 353.21(c).
On December 28, 1994, we published an antidumping duty order (59 FR
66909) that stated that imports of the two producer/exporter
combinations identified in the LTFV investigation had margins of zero.
We stated in the antidumping duty order that we would exclude from the
order imports of subject merchandise that are sold by ``either China
First or Guangdong and manufactured by the producers whose factors
formed the basis for the zero margin'' (59 FR at 66910). In the final
determination, we referred to the corresponding producers as Company A
and Company B. Those producer/exporter combinations were subsequently
identified in the order as China First/China First and Guangdong/Three
Star Stationery.
In response to our notice of opportunity to request administrative
review, for this first administrative review, the petitioner (the
Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association) requested by letter dated
January 11, 1996 that the Department conduct an administrative review
of China First and Guangdong ``to determine whether merchandise
purportedly produced and exported by the excluded combinations was, in
fact, produced or exported by a combination of companies that are
subject to the order.'' On February 1, 1996, the Department published a
notice of initiation of an administrative review of China First,
Guangdong and 94 other potential producers/exporters named by the
petitioner in its review request covering the period of review (POR)
December 21, 1994, through November 30, 1995.
On February 23, 1996, we sent a questionnaire to the companies for
which the petitioner requested a review, including China First and
Guangdong. In it, we specifically stated that pencils produced and
exported by the excluded company combinations are not subject
merchandise.
Rescission
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's proposed
regulations (61 FR 7308, 7365; February 27, 1996), we have determined
that during the POR, China First did not export pencils to the United
States that were manufactured by producers other than China First, and
Guangdong did not export pencils to the United States that were
manufactured by producers other than Three Star Stationery. We
conducted on-site verification of this information in Shanghai and
Guangzhou, China, from December 11, 1996, through December 13, 1996. We
found no evidence of shipments of subject merchandise manufactured by
producers other than China First or Three Star Stationery made by the
exporters China First and Guangdong, respectively, to the United States
during the POR. Therefore, we rescind this review with respect to China
First and Guangdong. Furthermore, this review is also rescinded with
respect to those respondents in this review, in addition to China First
and Three Star Stationery, which reported that they made no shipments
of subject merchandise during this POR, namely: (1) Tru Blue Products
Ltd., (2) Onan Shipping Ltd., (3) Anhui Provincial Import & Export
Corporation, (4) Aempac System Ltd., (5) The Merton Company Limited,
(6) King Sun Company, (7) Shanghai Machinery & Equipment Import and
Export Corporation, (8) China North Industries Tianjin Corporation, and
(9) Panalpina, Inc.
[[Page 1735]]
Facts Available
Shanghai Lansheng (Shanghai), an exporter and a named respondent in
this review, and a respondent in the LTFV investigation, did not
respond to the questionnaire issued in this review. Because of
Shanghai's failure to provide a questionnaire response, the
administrative record in this proceeding lacks information necessary to
make an informed determination regarding Shanghai's separate rate
status, and we preliminarily determine that Shanghai is no longer
entitled to a separate rate. Further, because Shanghai and other named
respondents did not respond to our questionnaire in this review, as
adverse facts available, imports of subject merchandise from Shanghai
and all other producers/exporters who have not qualified for a separate
rate will be subject to the PRC rate of 44.66 percent, the highest rate
established in the LTFV investigation.
Section 776(a)(1) of the Act mandates that the Department use the
facts available if necessary information is not available on the record
of an antidumping proceeding. In addition, section 776(a)(2) of the Act
mandates that the Department use the facts available where an
interested party or any other person: (A) Withholds information
requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide requested information
by the requested date or in the form and manner requested; (C)
significantly impedes an antidumping proceeding; or (D) provides
information that cannot be verified. In this case, Shanghai and other
named respondents failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire.
Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the
Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of that
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous
administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
Because information from prior proceedings constitutes secondary
information, section 776(c) provides that the Department shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) (H. Doc. 316, 103d Cong., 2nd Sess. 870)
provides that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will satisfy
itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.
The SAA, at page 870, clarifies that the petition is ``secondary
information,'' and that ``corroborate'' means to determine that the
information has probative value. Id. During our analysis of the
petition in the LTFV investigation, we reviewed all of the data
submitted and the assumptions that petitioners had made when
calculating estimated dumping margins. US purchase price (now export
price) was based on multiple price quotes. The factors values for
calculation of the foreign market value (now normal value) were based
on public data, where available. However, as a result of our analysis,
we recalculated the petition rates due to errors made by the petitioner
in the calculation of paint costs, profit, and depreciation expenses.
(See concurrence memorandum to file dated November 29, 1993.) We also
rejected petitioner's methodology of using the cost of a finished core
in our factors analysis, as this would have resulted in double counting
of certain expenses included in the cost of a finished core. (See
initiation notice, (58 FR 64548, December 8, 1993).) Thus, because we
reviewed the petitioners assumptions and calculations from which the
petition rates were derived, and made appropriate corrections, we
determine that the petition rates, as corrected, have probative value.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
Average
Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter Margin
Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC Rate................................................... 44.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice,
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. See Sec. 353.38 of the Department's regulations. The
Department will publish a notice of final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such comments. The Department shall determine,
and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service. Furthermore, the
following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of
the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of
pencils from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for all Chinese
exporters, will be the rate established in the final results of this
review; and (2) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the
PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate of its supplier, i.e., the
PRC rate. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under Sec. 353.26 of the Department's regulations to
file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's
presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the
subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act and Sec. 353.22 of the Department's
regulations.
Dated: January 2, 1997.
Robert S. La Russa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-750 Filed 1-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
