[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55234-55236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26591]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-810]
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; 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 the petitioner, the Department of
Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The
review covers 17 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to
the United States for the period of review (``POR'') September 1, 1997,
through August 31, 1998.
For all companies named in this review, we are basing our
preliminary results on ``facts available'' (``FA''). If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to
assess antidumping duties on entries during the POR.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each
comment (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of their
comment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nova Daly or Thomas Futtner, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone (202) 482-0989 or (202) 482-3814, respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
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, as amended,
(``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351
(1998).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping
duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). On
September 30, 1998, the petitioner, Consolidated International
Automotive, Inc. (``Consolidated''), requested that we conduct an
administrative review for the period September 1, 1997, through August
31, 1998. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 29, 1997 (62 FR
58705), and sent questionnaires to the following firms: Anmax
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Anmax''), Buxton International Corporation
(``Buxton''), Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co. (``Chu Fong''), Everspring
Plastic Corp. (``Everspring''), Gingen Metal Corp. (``Gingen''),
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation (``Gourmet''), Hwen Hsin
Enterprises Co., Ltd. (``Hwen''), Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd.
(``Kwan How''), Kwan Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd (``Kwan Ta''), Kuang Hong
Industries, Ltd. (``Kuang''), Multigrand Industries Inc.
(``Multigrand''), San Chien Electric Industrial Works, Ltd. (``San
Chien''), San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd. (``San Shing''), Transcend
International Co. (``Transcend''), Trade Union International Inc./Top
Line (``Trade Union''), Uniauto, Inc. (``Uniauto'') and Wing Tang
Electrical Manufacturing Company, Inc (``Wing''). Gourmet and Trade
Union responded to the questionnaire.
Questionnaires that were sent to Transcend, Kwan How, Kwan Ta,
Kuang, Everspring, and Gingen were returned as undeliverable. We are
classifying these companies as ``unlocated companies'', and, in
accordance with our practice with respect to companies to which we
cannot send a questionnaire, are assigning them the ``all others'' rate
established in the less-than-fair-value (``LTFV'') investigation, which
was 6.93 percent. See Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 63503
(December 11, 1995); see also Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of
Man-Made Fiber From Hong Kong; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 59 FR 13926 (March 24, 1994).
Scope of the Review
The merchandise covered by this review is one-piece and two-piece
chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are more than
\11/16\ inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal
(hex) size of at least \3/4\ inches (19.05 millimeters), but not over
one inch (25.4 millimeters), plus or minus \1/16\ of an inch (1.59 mm).
The term ``unfinished'' refers to
[[Page 55235]]
unplated and/or unassembled chrome-plated lug nuts. The subject
merchandise is used for securing wheels to cars, vans, trucks, utility
vehicles, and trailers. Zinc-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished,
and stainless-steel capped lug nuts are not within the scope of this
review. Chrome-plated lock nuts are also not within the scope of this
review.
During the period of review, chrome-plated lug nuts were provided
for under subheading 7318.16.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and
Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review
is dispositive.
Facts Available
In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we preliminarily
determine that the use of facts available is appropriate as the basis
for dumping margins for Anmax, Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto,
Hwen, San Chien, San Shing, Wing, Trade Union, and Gourmet. Section
776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A)
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (B)
fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or
manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and 782(e) of the
Act, (C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping
statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, then the Department
shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise
available in reaching the applicable determination.
Because the following firms did not respond to the Department's
antidumping questionnaire, and therefore, have withheld information
that has been requested by the Department, we preliminarily determine
that in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of
facts available is appropriate for Anmax, Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand,
Uniauto, Hwen, San Chien, San Shing, and Wing.
In addition, although Trade Union provided some information in
response to the Department's questionnaire, its submission was untimely
filed with the Department. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the
use of facts available, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the
Act, is also warranted with respect to this company.
The Department also sent a questionnaire and supplemental
questionnaires to Gourmet, which provided timely responses. However, as
was determined in the previous segment of the proceeding, see Chrome-
Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 64 FR 17314 (April 9, 1999), due to the nature
of Gourmet's accounting system, the Department would not be able to
reconcile the data Gourmet submitted in its responses to the
Department's questionnaires with Gourmet's financial statements or bank
accounts. See comments in memo from Tom Futtner to Holly Kuga regarding
the facts available decision for Gourmet, September 20, 1999 (``FA
memo''). Section 776(a)(2)(D) allows the Department to use facts
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination if a
respondent provides information but the requested information can not
be verified.
As explained in more detail below, the aforementioned companies
have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability to provide the
information requested by the Department. As a consequence, we have used
an adverse inference in selecting the facts available to determine
their margins in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.
Anmax, Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto, Hwen, San Chien, San
Shing, and Wing received the Department's questionnaire and did not
respond. These companies have received questionnaires in previous
administrative reviews and have continued to abstain from
participation. See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in
Part, 63 FR 53875 (October 7, 1998). Trade Union also has been a party
to the antidumping proceedings for lug nuts from Taiwan in past
administrative reviews. In this review, Trade Union received the
Department's questionnaire but submitted its response over one month
past the Department's deadline. Trade Union never requested an
extension and, hence, the Department rejected its submission as
untimely, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d). Because these companies have
either submitted no response or an untimely response to the
Department's questionnaire, the Department finds that Anmax, Buxton,
Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto, Hwen, San Chien, San Shing, Wing, and
Trade Union have not acted to the best of their ability and should be
subject to adverse inferences for facts available under section 776(b)
of the Act.
Gourmet submitted timely responses to the Department's
questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire. However, in Gourmet's
supplemental questionnaire, Gourmet indicated that it would not provide
the Department with audited financial statements. Gourmet, as it had
done in the previous review period, see Gourmet's March 10, 1999,
supplemental questionnaire response, requested that the Department
utilize an alternative method of verification in order to substantiate
the information submitted in Gourmet's January 20, 1999, response to
the Department's questionnaire. This method would be based on a
reconciliation of the company's sales to its bank statements. However,
as was determined in the previous review period, we do not consider
this a reliable method on which to base our verification of the
company's submitted sales data. See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17314
(April 9, 1999). For further detail on this matter, also see FA memo.
Reliance on the accounting system used for the preparation of the
financial statements is a key and vital part of the Department's
determination that a company's sales and constructed value data are
credible. Although Gourmet is aware of the Department's requirements
for verifiable submissions, it has, once again, provided information
which the Department can not verify. Therefore, Gourmet has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a
request for information from the Department. Because its submission is
not reconcilable, it is not verifiable. Consequently, we have
determined, in accordance with section 776(b), that the use of adverse
facts available also is warranted for Gourmet. Section 776(b) also
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available,
information derived from secondary information. In this case, we have
used the highest rate from the proceeding, which is 10.67 percent. This
rate was calculated in the Amendment to the Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value (56 FR 47737 September 20, 1991),
covering the period May 1, 1990 through October 31, 1990.
Because information from prior segments of the proceeding
constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) provides that the
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') provides that corroborate
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value. H.R. Doc. No. 103-316,
Vol.1 at 870 (1994).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and
[[Page 55236]]
relevance of the information to be used. However, unlike other types of
information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no
independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for
margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as facts available, the Department will disregard the
margin and determine an appropriate margin, see, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review (61 FR 63822, 63824 December 2, 1996), where the Department
disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available because the
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin. No such circumstances exist in
this case which would cause the Department to disregard a prior margin.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period September 1, 1997, through
August 31, 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation..................... 10.67
Buxton International/Uniauto............................... 10.67
Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co.............................. 10.67
Transcend International.................................... 6.93
San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd............................ 10.67
Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd.................................. 10.67
Everspring Plastic Corp.................................... 6.93
Gingen Metal Corp.......................................... 6.93
Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd............................. 10.67
Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd.............................. 6.93
Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd............................... 6.93
Kuang Hong Industries Ltd.................................. 6.93
Multigrand Industries Inc.................................. 10.67
San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd.......................... 10.67
Trade Union International Inc./Top Line.................... 10.67
Uniauto, Inc............................................... 10.67
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company................. 10.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five (5) days after the date of
publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested
parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary
results. Case briefs are currently scheduled for submission within 30
days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs,
limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later
than five (5) days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties
who submit an argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with
the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of
the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested
parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice,
interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise,
the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the deadline for
submission of rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue a notice of
the final results of this administrative review, including its analysis
of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing, not
later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, based on
the above rates, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The
rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries supplied by that
particular company during the POR. Upon completion of this review, the
Department will issue appraisement instructions on each manufacturer/
exporter directly to Customs.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of chrome plated lug nuts from Taiwan entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 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 rates established in the final results
of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required
where the weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters
not covered in this review but covered in the LTFV investigation or a
previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent
rate published in the final determination or final results for which
the manufacturer or exporter received an individual rate; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or
the original 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 original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 6.93 percent,
the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 29, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-26591 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
