[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4723-4728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2350]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-504]
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by respondents, Cinsa, S.A. de C.V.
(``Cinsa'') and Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V.
(``ENASA''), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-
steel cookware from Mexico. This review covers the above manufacturers/
exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period
of review (POR) is December 1, 1994, through November 30, 1995. This is
the ninth period of review.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal
value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding should also
submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dolores Peck or Kate Johnson, AD/CVD
Enforcement Group II, Import Administration--Room B099, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4929.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The 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 Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
On October 10, 1986, the Department published in the Federal
Register (51 FR 36435) the final affirmative antidumping duty
determination on certain porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico. We
published an antidumping duty order on December 2, 1986 (51 FR 43415).
On December 4, 1995, the Department published the Opportunity to
Request an Administrative Review of this order for the period December
1, 1994, through November 30, 1995 (60 FR 62071). The Department
received a request for an administrative review of exports from Cinsa
and ENASA, affiliated producers/exporters of the subject merchandise,
and from General Housewares Corporation, the petitioner. We published a
notice of initiation of the review on February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3670).
Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the
statutory time limit of 365 days. On August 6, 1996, the Department
extended the time limit for the preliminary results in this case. See
Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61
FR 40819 (August 6, 1996).
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of porcelain-on-steel
cookware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. This
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware
currently entering under HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject
to the order. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
Transactions Reviewed
In accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Act, the Department is
required to determine the EP (or CEP) and NV of each entry of subject
merchandise.
In determining NV, based on a review of respondents' submissions,
the Department determined that ENASA should report all sales of heavy
gauge (HG) cookware in conjunction with a promotion agreement signed
during the POR because the Department determined that the sales in
question occurred during the POR. See Memorandum For Louis Apple From
The Team, dated December 16, 1996 (``Issues Memorandum'').
[[Page 4724]]
Affiliated Parties Issue
Petitioner claimed that the facts on the record of this
administrative review indicate that the relationship of respondents
Cinsa and ENASA to their parent, Grupo Industrial Saltillo, S.A. de
C.V. (``GIS'' or ``GISSA'), is such that there exists a strong
possibility of manipulating prices or affecting production decisions.
In addition, petitioner placed on the record of this review
correspondence from Cinsa in the previous review wherein Cinsa stated
that all GIS majority-owned related companies should be collapsed.
Furthermore, petitioner argued that in the previous review, in making
the preliminary decision not to collapse these two companies, the
Department had failed to consider other criteria which the Department
normally looks at in making such decisions.
In the preliminary results for the 8th review, the Department
decided not to collapse Cinsa and ENASA because during that review we
verified that ENASA's manufacturing facilities are separate from
Cinsa's. The verification report noted that the machinery that Cinsa
used to make light-gauge (LG) cookware could not be used to make the
heavy-gauge (HG) cookware produced by ENASA without fundamental and
expensive retooling.
The Department's proposed regulations would codify its current
practice for determining when to ``collapse'' producers of subject
merchandise:
In an antidumping proceeding under this part, the Secretary will
treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where
those producers have production facilities for similar or identical
products that would not require substantial retooling of either
facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and the
Secretary concludes that there is a significant potential for the
manipulation of price or production.
See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties (Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments). 61 FR 7308, 7330 and 7381
(February 27, 1996), at section 351.401.
As is evident from the above regulation, the Department will
collapse two producers if each of three requirements are met: (1) the
producers must be ``affiliated''; (2) they must have manufacturing
facilities sufficiently similar that no substantial retooling would be
needed to restructure manufacturing priorities with respect to the
subject merchandise, and (3) the Department concludes, based on the
listed factors, that there is a significant potential for manipulation
of pricing or production decisions.
Under the new statute (which applies to this 9th review), the
definition of ``affiliated parties'' includes ``[t]wo or more persons
directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with, any person.'' 19 U.S.C. 1677(33)(F)(1996). The facts on
the record of this review indicate that Cinsa and ENASA are controlled
by the same parent, and are thus affiliated.
Although we consider both HG and LG cookware to be subject
merchandise, they are not similar products and therefore cannot be
reasonably compared for the purposes of determining dumping margins. HG
and LG cookware differ significantly in the area of material
composition and fabrication. HG cookware is made with a heavier gauge
of steel and has a heavier coating of enamel with a different chemical
composition than the enamel types used for LG cookware. Also, HG and LG
are usually not approximately equal in commercial value.
Moreover, we verified in the 8th review that extensive and
expensive retooling would be necessary for Cinsa to produce HG products
or for ENASA to produce LG products. According to Cinsa, although both
Cinsa and ENASA use stamping equipment to stamp metal forms out of
sheet metal, the stamping machines are not interchangeable. Also, more
powerful equipment is needed for the production of HG cookware,
equipment which is not suitable for LG steel. In addition, LG and HG
cookware require totally different die types for use in the stamping
equipment. Moreover, HG cookware production requires three different
furnaces: one for the enamel coatings, one for decorative coatings, and
one for the application of the nonstick surface. However, in LG
cookware production a single furnace is used for enamel and decorative
coatings and there is no application of nonstick coatings. Finally, the
different chemical composition of the enamel coatings used in HG and LG
cookware requires different cleaning treatments prior to the
application of the enamel. (See April 22, 1996, response at 28.)
Verification did not contradict any of these statements.
We have determined that the differences between the production
facilities for LG and HG cookware dictate that the second criterion for
collapsing affiliated parties is not met. Therefore, Cinsa and ENASA
will receive separate dumping margins.
Petitioner further argued that Cinsa and ENASA should be collapsed
because they both have the capability to produce medium gauge cookware.
This issue of medium gauge of cookware was not raised in prior reviews.
Respondents asserted that this issue was irrelevant since neither
respondent sold medium gauge cookware in the United States. We
requested supplemental information from respondents regarding the
possibility that both respondents manufacture an overlapping product.
Respondents claimed that prior to 1994 Cinsa produced a few medium and
heavy gauge products. However Cinsa ceased its production of older
models of medium and heavy gauge after the establishment of ENASA in
late 1993 and Cinsa's tooling was sold off as scrap. Evidence on the
record does not suggest that Cinsa and ENASA both produced medium gauge
cookware during the POR.
Petitioner argues that any collapsing decision must be based on the
totality of the circumstances, such that the absence of overlapping
production facilities must be weighed against the concerns associated
with a substantial degree of common control. However, under the
Department's current practice, the existence of production facilities
for similar or identical merchandise, while not necessarily
determinative, is essential. Thus, while we would not collapse based
solely upon that one criterion, we will not collapse if that criterion
is not met. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products
and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Canada, 60 FR 42511,
42512 (August 16, 1995) (Preliminary); 61 FR 13815 (March 28, 1996)
(Final). In Certain Cold Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Korea,
60 FR 65284, 65285 (December 19, 1995) (Preliminary); 61 FR 18547
(April 26, 1996) (Final).
Because we have preliminarily determined that the production
facilities of Cinsa and ENASA would require substantial retooling in
order to produce similar or identical products, we are not treating
these firms as a single entity for the purpose of assigning an
antidumping margin.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondents, covered by the description in the
``Scope of the Review'' section, above, and sold in the home market
during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like
product on the basis of the characteristics listed in the description
of the merchandise and product description sections of
[[Page 4725]]
respondents' March 11, 1996, and April 22, 1996, questionnaire
responses. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like
products based on the physical characteristics reported by the
respondents.
We have rejected respondent Cinsa's argument that HG and LG
cookware constitute distinct ``classes or kinds'' of merchandise and,
therefore, we should calculate separate margins for HG and LG cookware.
The scope of an order constitutes a single class or kind of
merchandise, i.e. the ``subject merchandise.''
The order under review covers both HG and LG cookware. Cinsa has
conceded that point by requesting rates for both HG and LG cookware.
Thus, in effect, Cinsa argues not that there are separate classes or
kinds of merchandise, but rather that HG and LG are sufficiently
different to warrant separate rates. While the Department has
calculated separate margins for different classes of products in
exceptional circumstances, the record of this proceeding does not
establish circumstances sufficient to warrant product-specific rates.
Date of Sale
For Cinsa sales to the United States, we used the invoice date as
the date of sale since this represents the first occasion where the
price and quantity are fixed.
ENASA stated that its date of sale for sales to the United States
should be the date of the ultimate reconciliation between ENASA's
affiliated distributor, Yamaka China, Inc. (``Yamaka'') and the
unaffiliated customer, while petitioner favored the date of the
contract between Yamaka and its unaffiliated customer.
We reviewed the terms of the contract between Yamaka and an
unaffiliated customer. Because the contract constitutes a binding
agreement in the nature of a requirements contract, whereby Yamaka and
the unaffiliated customer agreed upon the price and quantity (whatever
was sold in connection with the promotion, with a guarantee of
repurchase for items not sold at retail), the date of this contract is
the appropriate date of sale for all cookware sold to the United States
in connection with the promotion. See Issues Memorandum.
For Cinsa and ENASA sales in the home market, we used invoice date
as the date of sale.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of porcelain-on-steel cookware by Cinsa
and ENASA to the United States were made at less than fair value, we
compared EP (or CEP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price (or
Constructed Export Price)'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice.
Mexico experienced significant inflation during the POR, as
measured by the consumer price index published in International
Financial Statistics and the consumer price index from the Bank of
Mexico. Accordingly, to avoid the distortions caused by the effects of
this level of inflation on prices, we limited our comparisons to sales
in the same month and did not apply the Department's 90/60 rule,
whereby the Department uses NV from three months prior to and two
months after the month in which the U.S. sale was made. See Certain
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 58356, 58359 (November
19, 1991).
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For certain sales made by Cinsa, and all sales made by ENASA, we
calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the
subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and because CEP was
not otherwise indicated. We based EP on packed prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions from the gross unit
price, where appropriate, for U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and
Mexican brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. duty and rebates.
For certain sales made by Cinsa during the POR, we used CEP in
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject
merchandise was sold for the account of the Cinsa by its affiliated
sales companies after having been imported into the United States. We
based CEP on packed prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. We made deductions from the gross unit price, where
appropriate, for U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. and Mexican
brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. duty and rebates.
We made further deductions, where appropriate, for credit,
commissions, and indirect selling expenses that were associated with
economic activities occurring in the United States. Finally, we made an
adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, we determined that the quantity of the foreign like product
sold in the exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper
comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to the United
States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on (1) either the
VAT-exclusive price at which the foreign like product was first sold
for consumption in the home market or (2) CV, as noted in the ``Price
to Price Comparisons'' and ``Price to CV Comparisons'' sections of this
notice.
Level of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R.
Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess at 870. (1994) (SAA), at 829-831, to
the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales
at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale. When the Department is
unable to find sale(s) in the comparison market at the same level of
trade as the U.S. sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S.
to foreign market sales at a different level of trade. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Certain Pasta from
Italy, 61 FR 30326 (June 14, 1996) (Pasta from Italy).
In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, in comparing
U.S. sales to NV sales, the Department will adjust the NV to account
for any difference in level of trade if two conditions are met. First,
the sales must in fact be made at different levels of trade, which can
exist only if there are differences between the actual selling
functions performed by the seller at the level of trade of the U.S.
sale and the level of trade of the NV sale. Second, the difference must
affect price comparability as evidenced by a pattern of consistent
price differences between sales at the different levels of trade in the
market in which NV is determined.
Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP ``offset''
may be made when two conditions exist: (1) NV is established at a level
of trade which constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than
the level of trade of the CEP and; (2) the data available do not
provide an appropriate basis for a level-of-trade adjustment.
In order to determine that there is a difference in level of trade,
the Department must find that two sales have been made at different
stages of marketing, or the equivalent. Different stages of marketing
necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences
in selling functions (even substantial ones) are not alone sufficient
to establish a difference in the level of
[[Page 4726]]
trade. Similarly, seller and customer descriptions (such as
``distributor'' and ``wholesaler'') are useful in identifying different
levels of trade, but are insufficient to establish that there is a
difference in the level of trade. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 51891, 51895-96 (October 4, 1996) (Steel from Canada).
Pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B)(i) of the Act and the SAA at 827,
in identifying levels of trade for EP and home market sales, we
considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price of
these transactions before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered
only the selling activities reflected in the constructed price, i.e.,
after expenses and profit were deducted under section 772(d) of the
Act. Whenever sales were made by or through an affiliated company or
agent, we considered all selling activities by affiliated parties,
except for those selling activities associated with the expenses
deducted under section 772(d) of the Act in CEP situations.
In implementing this principle in this review, we examined
information regarding the selling activities of the producers/exporters
associated with each stage of marketing, or the equivalent. In
addition, we examined any claimed levels of trade (LOTs) reported by
each respondent in response to our initial and supplemental
questionnaires (see February 8, 1996, and September 10, 1996, letters
from the Department to respondents).
In reviewing the selling functions reported by the respondents, we
considered all types of selling activities, both claimed and unclaimed,
that had been performed. In analyzing whether separate LOTs existed in
this review, we found that no single selling activity was sufficient to
warrant a separate LOT (see Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request
for Public Comments, 61 FR 7307, 7348 (February 27, 1996)). For this
review, we determined that the following selling functions and
activities are relevant to the cookware industry: (1) Inventory
maintenance; (2) technical services; (3) warranty services; (4)
customer advice and product information; (5) delivery arrangements; (6)
sales from warehouse vs. direct sales; and (7) direct advertising. We
did not consider trade discounts as a selling function (see Pasta from
Italy).
When examining claimed LOTs, we analyzed the selling activities
associated with the classes of customers and marketing stages the
respondents reported. In applying this analysis, we expect that, if
claimed LOTs are the same, the functions and activities of the seller
should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that LOTs are
different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities
of the seller should be dissimilar. The Department not only examines
the types of selling activities, but weighs the overall function
performed for each claimed level of trade. In determining whether
separate LOTs existed in the home market, pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we considered the selling functions
reflected in the starting price of the home market sales before any
adjustment.
In their questionnaire responses, Cinsa and ENASA stated that there
were no differences in selling activities by customer categories within
each market. Respondents requested a level of trade adjustment based on
the fact that U.S. sales are made at a level of trade more remote from
the customer and in significantly larger quantities than sales in the
home market. However, as discussed below, we did not find any
differences in levels of trade and therefore no level of trade
adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.
We reviewed respondents' questionnaire responses in order to
confirm that the selling functions of Cinsa and ENASA did not differ
among customer categories in the U.S. and home market.
Cinsa and ENASA sold to multiple customers both in the United
States and home markets. In their April 22, 1996, questionnaire
responses both Cinsa and ENASA indicated that they do not differentiate
pricing, sales terms or delivery terms by type of customer. They also
stated in their request for a level of trade adjustment that sales
support activities for both markets were generally the same. Thus, our
analysis of the questionnaire responses leads us to conclude that sales
within each market and between markets are not made at different levels
of trade. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that all sales in the home
market and the U.S. market are made at the same level of trade.
Therefore, all sales comparisons are at the same level of trade and an
adjustment pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(A) is unwarranted.
Cost of Production Analysis
The Department disregarded certain sales made by Cinsa for the
period December 1, 1991, through November 30, 1992, (the most recently
completed review of Cinsa) pursuant to a finding in that review that
sales were made below cost. Thus, in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that respondent Cinsa made sales in the home market at prices
below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review
period. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to
determine whether the respondent made home market sales during the POR
at prices below their COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the
Act.
A. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of Cinsa's cost of materials
and fabrication costs for the foreign like product, plus amounts for
home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'')
and packing costs in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.51(c).
As noted above in the Fair Value section, we determined that the
Mexican economy experienced high inflation during the POR. Therefore,
in order to avoid the distortive effect of inflation on our comparisons
of costs and prices, we requested that Cinsa submit current monthly
model-specific production costs incurred during each month of the POR.
For certain models sold during the POR, Cinsa approximated current
production costs because the company did not manufacture these models
during the POR. We calculated a model-specific total and variable cost
of manufacturing during the POR. Using the consumer price index for
Mexico maintained by the Bank of Mexico and provided by respondents in
their response, we indexed the total and variable POR model-specific
costs to an common point (November, 1995), the last month of the POR).
We then divided the sum of the total POR model-specific costs by the
total model-specific production quantity to obtain a model-specific POR
weighted-average cost corresponding to the November, 1995, common
point. The weighted average cost of manufacturing was then restated in
the currency value of each respective month and used to calculate a
monthly COP for each product.
We relied on COP information submitted by Cinsa, except in the
following instances where it was not appropriately quantified or valued
: (1) frit prices from an affiliated supplier did not approximate fair
market value prices; therefore, we increased direct materials by the
percentage required to adjust the reported cost of frit to reflect fair
market prices; (2) we included revalued depreciation in our calculation
of fixed overhead since this cost related to depreciation of the
production plant and equipment; (3) we added profit
[[Page 4727]]
sharing expenses to the variable cost of manufacture because they
relate to the compensation of direct labor; and (4) we revised Cinsa's
submitted interest costs to exclude the calculation of negative
interest expense.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
We compared the monthly weight-averaged per unit COP figures,
indexed to account for the effects of inflation as noted above, to home
market sales of the foreign like product as required under section
773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales were made
at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard home
market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether (1)
within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial
quantities, and (2) such sales were made at prices which permitted the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. On a product-
specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any
applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and
indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP,
we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made
at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act). Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below
the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product, and calculated NV
based on CV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)of the Act .
D. Calculation of CV
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated a CV
based on the sum of respondents' cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A,
and U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales listing. We
calculated CV based on the methodology described in the calculation of
COP above.
In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit
on the actual amounts incurred and realized by Cinsa and ENASA in
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
For selling expenses, we used the weighted average home market selling
expense. Where we compared EP to CV, we deducted from CV the weighted-
average home market direct selling expenses and added the weighted-
average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses, in accordance
with section 353.56(a)(2) of the Department's regulations.
E. Price to Price Comparisons
For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices
above the COP, we based Cinsa's NV on home market prices. We based
ENASA's NV on home market prices. For both respondents, we calculated
NV based on the VAT-exclusive gross unit price and deducted, where
appropriate, inland freight, rebates, and early payment discounts.
For comparisons to Cinsa and ENASA's EP sales, we made a
circumstance-of-sale adjustment, where appropriate, for differences in
credit expenses. For comparisons to Cinsa's CEP sales, we also deducted
credit expenses and commissions from NV. We did not make an adjustment
for packing expenses because both respondents reported that such costs
were identical on a per-unit basis in the two markets. We also made
adjustments to NV, where appropriate, for differences in costs
attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
In order to make appropriate comparisons of differences in costs
between models sold over the POR, and to account for the effects of
inflation, all costs were expressed in currency values corresponding to
November, 1995, the last month of the POR. Using these November based
costs, we then calculated a per-unit model-specific weighted-average
variable and total cost of manufacturing. These weighted-average costs
were then indexed to the currency value of the month of the comparison
U.S. sale. The adjusted monthly variable costs of manufacturing for
U.S. and home market products were then compared to arrive at the
difference in merchandise adjustment. Where the difference in
merchandise adjustment for any product exceeded 20 percent of the
indexed COM of the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.
F. Price to CV
Where we compared EP or CEP to CV, we deducted from CV the
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the
United States direct selling expenses.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Section 773 A(a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars,
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with
the Department's practice, we have determined as a general matter that
a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs from a
benchmark by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as the rolling
average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we determine a
fluctuation existed, we substitute the benchmark for the daily rate.
However, for the preliminary results in this review, we have not
determined that a fluctuation exists, and we have not substituted the
benchmark for the daily rate.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa.............................. 12/1/94-11/30/95 12.39
ENASA.............................. 12/1/94-11/30/95 12.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five 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 date of publication or the
first business day thereafter.
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and
[[Page 4728]]
37 days, respectively, from the date of publication of these
preliminary results. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs
in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
The Department will subsequently publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later
than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department shall determine and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the
Customs Service upon completion of this review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of the final results of this antidumping duty review
for all shipments of porcelain-on-steel cookware from Mexico, entered,
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1)
The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be those
established in the final results of review; (2) for exporters not
covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV investigation or prior
reviews, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific
rate from the LTFV investigation or the prior review; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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; (4) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 29.52 percent, the
``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. These
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 19 C.F.R. 353.26 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 published in accordance
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: January 21, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-2350 Filed 1-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
