[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55965-55970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27858]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-811]
Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the preliminary results of its 1994-95 administrative review
of the antidumping duty order
[[Page 55966]]
on steel wire rope from Korea (61 FR 20233). The review covers 25
manufacturers/exporters for the period March 1, 1994, through February
28, 1995 (the POR). We have analyzed the comments received on our
preliminary results and have determined that no changes in the margin
calculations are required. The final weighted-average dumping margins
for each of the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled
``Final Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O. Barlow, Matthew Rosenbaum,
or Kris Campbell, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to the current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
On May 6, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of its 1994-95 administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from the Republic of Korea
(61 FR 20233) (Preliminary Results). We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received case
briefs from the petitioner, the Committee of Domestic Steel Wire Rope
and Specialty Cable Manufacturers (the Committee), and rebuttal briefs
from six respondents including Chung-Woo Rope Co., Ltd. (Chung Woo),
Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd. (Chun Kee), Manho Rope & Wire Ltd.
(Manho), Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Kumho), Ssang Yong Steel Wire
Co., Inc. (Ssang Yong), and Sungjin Company (Sungjin). There was no
request for a hearing. The Department has conducted this review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
The product covered by this review is steel wire rope. Steel wire
rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel,
other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or made up into
articles, and not made up of brass-plated wire. Imports of these
products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and
7312.10.9090. Excluded from this review is stainless steel wire rope,
i.e., ropes, cables and cordage other than stranded wire, of stainless
steel, not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, which is
classifiable under HTS subheading 7312.10.6000. Although HTS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our own
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
We have determined, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act,
that the use of facts available is appropriate for Boo Kook Corp.,
Dong-Il Steel Mfg. Co., Ltd., Hanboo Rope, Jinyang Wire Rope Inc., and
Seo Jin Rope because they did not respond to our antidumping
questionnaire. We find that these firms have withheld ``information
that has been requested by the administering authority.'' Furthermore,
we determine that, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is
appropriate to make an inference adverse to the interests of these
companies because they failed to cooperate by not responding to our
questionnaire.
Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a
respondent in an administrative review on facts otherwise available
because that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act
authorizes the use of an inference adverse to the interests of that
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) of the Act
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. Section 776(c) of the Act 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) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information
to be used has probative value. (See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong.,
2d sess. 870 (1994).)
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and 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. Thus, in an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as total adverse 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 adverse 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 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996), where the Department disregarded
the highest margin as adverse best information available (BIA) because
the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business
expense resulting in an unusually high margin).
For a discussion of our application of facts available regarding
specific firms, see our response to Comment 1 below.
Analysis of Comments Received
Comment 1: The Committee argues that, for all uncooperative
respondents, the Department must apply a rate of 23.5 percent because
the rate of 1.51 percent used in the preliminary results undercuts the
cooperation-inducing purpose of the facts available provision. The
Committee contends that the Department is permitted to draw an adverse
inference where a party has not cooperated in a proceeding (citing the
SAA at 199). The Committee further asserts that the SAA (at 200)
directs the Department, in employing adverse inferences, to consider
the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of
cooperation.
The Committee references the Department's policy of applying an
uncooperative rate based on the higher of (1) the highest of the rates
found for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the
less than fair value (LTFV) investigation or prior administrative
reviews; or (2) the highest calculated rate in the current review for
any firm.1 The Committee
[[Page 55967]]
claims that the Department has used a higher rate than that established
under this practice where the uncooperative rate was not sufficiently
adverse to induce the respondents to submit timely, accurate and
complete questionnaire responses. The Committee cites Silicon Metal
From Argentina: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 58 FR 65336, 65337 (December 14, 1993) (Silicon Metal), and
Certain Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 41876 (August 14, 1995)
(Pipe Fittings) in support of its position that the Department must use
a sufficiently adverse uncooperative facts available rate to ensure
that the respondent does not obtain a more favorable result by failing
to cooperate. The Committee notes that, in these cases, the Department
used a higher rate than derived using the standard two-tiered approach
to derive the uncooperative rate. The Committee argues that the
Department should once again deviate from its standard uncooperative
rate determination practice since the dumping margin assigned to
uncooperative respondents in this steel wire rope proceeding (1.5
percent) has failed to induce the submission of questionnaire responses
by a majority of respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Committee refers to this standard as the first tier in
the Department's traditional two-tiered BIA methodology, but points
out that the Department has not yet explicitly applied the two-
tiered methodology to administrative reviews initiated under the
URAA. We note that our practice regarding the derivation of the
dumping rate for uncooperative respondents has not changed for
reviews conducted pursuant to URAA procedures. (see Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From
France, et al.: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 35713, 35715 (July 8, 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In calculating what it views as an appropriate facts available
rate, the Committee compared a price quotation of a single steel wire
rope product from a Korean steel wire rope producer subject to this
proceeding to the constructed value of this product, derived from
various industry sources. The Committee calculates a dumping rate of
23.5 percent using this approach and claims that this rate is a more
appropriate ``uncooperative'' rate than the 1.51 percent rate the
Department used in the preliminary results. The Committee cites Sodium
Thiosulfate from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 12934 (March 8, 1993)
(Sodium Thiosulfate), in support of calculating a revised facts
available rate in light of documented changes in manufacturing costs
and import prices. It contends that, from the first quarter of the
1992-94 POR to the last quarter of the 1994-95 POR, the manufacturing
costs of steel wire rope increased significantly, while the value of
imports of carbon steel wire rope declined. The Committee contends that
the increase in manufacturing costs is not reflected in the price of
steel wire rope exported to the United States and that this is
indicative of continuing sales of steel wire rope at less than fair
market value.
Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee and find that
reliance on petitioner-supplied data as a basis for facts available
would be inappropriate in the context of this review. The Department
has broad discretion in determining what constitutes facts available in
a given situation. Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp
789 (CIT 1993) at 792; see also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United
States, 996 F.2d. 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993) at 1191, which states
``[b]ecause Congress has `explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill'
in determining what constitutes the [best information available], the
ITA's construction of the statute must be accorded considerable
deference,'' citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 833-44 (1984).
In any given review, a respondent will have knowledge of the
antidumping rates from the investigation and past reviews but not of
the rates that will be established in the ongoing review. Because under
our facts available policy we consider the highest rate from the
current review as one possible source of facts available, potentially
uncooperative respondents will generally be less able to predict their
facts available rate as the number of participants in the ongoing
review increases. Thus, the facts available methodology induces
respondents to participate and receive their own known rates as opposed
to a potentially much higher unknown rate. Accordingly, this
uncertainty in the facts available margin rate which may be selected
satisfies the cooperation-inducing function of the facts available
provision in this case.
In addition, respondents have an incentive to respond to our
request for information because of the possibility of eventual
revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to the company. A
respondent that does not participate in the administrative review is
not eligible for revocation. Hence, a further reason the rate assigned
to the uncooperative respondents in this review may be considered
adverse is because it results in respondents remaining subject to the
order without eligibility for revocation.
We recognize that there are instances in which the uncooperative
rate resulting from our standard methodology may not induce respondents
to cooperate in subsequent segments of the proceeding. The few cases in
which we have not relied on this approach have involved an extremely
limited number of participants, and therefore a consequently small
number of rates available for use as a basis for the uncooperative
rate.2 For instance, in Sodium Thiosulfate, we used information
supplied by the petitioner to establish the uncooperative rate for the
only respondent that had shipments of subject merchandise during the
POR. Similarly, in Silicon Metal, we resorted to petitioner-supplied
data where we had a calculated rate for only one firm: ``[i]n this
instance, we have only Andina's rate from the LTFV investigation * * *.
Because Andina's rate is also the `all other' rate, Silarsa would be
assured a rate no higher than Andina's, the only respondent who
cooperated fully with the Department in this administrative review. The
use of the uncooperative BIA methodology, in this instance, restricts
the field of potential BIA rates to the rate established for one
firm.'' Silicon Metal, at 65336 and 65337 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As noted, although we have explained our practice in terms
of a two-tiered methodology in pre-URAA reviews, the cases where we
deviated from this approach, as cited by the Committee, involved
first-tier, uncooperative respondents, and our practice regarding
the derivation of the dumping margin assigned to uncooperative
companies has not changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our determination in Pipe Fittings is a further example of a
situation in which the circumstances of the case clearly demonstrated
that the uncooperative rate was not sufficient to induce the respondent
to cooperate. In Pipe Fittings, we applied a petition-based rate to a
non-responsive company that was the only company to have ever been
investigated or reviewed: ``[we] have only calculated one margin, which
was in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation. Due to the
unusual situation, we have determined to use as BIA the simple average
of the rates from the petition * * *. In not responding to our requests
for information, Tupy could be relying upon our normal BIA practice to
lock in a rate that is capped at its LTFV rate'' (see Pipe Fittings at
41877-78).
The concern in such cases with respect to the uncooperative rate
methodology is that the lack of past rates, as well as the small number
of participants in the current review, could allow a respondent in such
a review to
[[Page 55968]]
manipulate the proceeding by choosing not to comply with our requests
for information. In such cases the cooperation-inducing function of the
facts available provision of the Act may not be achieved by use of the
uncooperative rate methodology, in which case the Department will
resort to alternative sources in determining the appropriate rate for
uncooperative respondents.
The cases cited by the Committee in support of its position
establish only that we will consider, on a case-by-case basis as
appropriate, petitioner-supplied data in situations involving a number
of calculated rates insufficient to induce cooperation by respondents
in the proceeding. In those cases, we did not have rates for more than
one company and therefore determined that the use of a BIA rate higher
than the highest rate in the history of the case was appropriate to
encourage future cooperation.
Because we have calculated rates from three companies in the LTFV
final determination, eight companies in the first review, and six
companies in this review, the concern over potential manipulation of
antidumping rates cited in Sodium Thiosulfate, Silicon Metal, and Pipe
Fittings does not exist in the present case. The lack of alternative
information and the substantial amount of primary information on the
record lead us to conclude that the Committee's information is inferior
to the primary information. Therefore, we are satisfied that selection
of the highest of these rates is appropriate for facts available for
this review, is consistent with our practice, and is sufficiently
adverse.
Comment 2: The Committee contends that the Department failed to
adjust Ssang Yong's home market price for ``other bank charges'' and
differences in merchandise (DIFMER). The Committee also contends that
the Department failed to deduct international freight and marine
insurance in calculating Ssang Yong's U.S. price (USP).
Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee. We
appropriately adjusted for other bank charges and differences in
merchandise in calculating normal value and for international freight
and marine insurance in calculating USP. When disclosing the materials
used in the preliminary results, we inadvertently attached Sung Jin's
cover page to Ssang Yong's computer program. Although we did not make
these adjustments in Sun Jin's program (because they were not
appropriate for that company), we did make such adjustments in Ssang
Yong's program.
Comment 3: The Committee states that the Department correctly
rejected claims by Chung Woo, Ltd., Kumho and Ssang Yong for duty
drawback because these companies did not demonstrate the requisite
connection between imports for which they paid duties and exports of
steel wire rope. The Committee argues that these respondents failed to
meet the requirements of the Department's two-pronged test for
determining whether a party is entitled to an adjustment to USP for
duty drawback because they have not shown that: (1) The import duty and
the rebate received under the ``simplified'' Korean drawback program
are directly linked, and (2) there were sufficient raw material inputs
to account for duty drawback received on exports of steel wire rope.
The committee claims that this test has been upheld by the Court of
International Trade, citing Far East Machinery Co. v. United States, 12
CIT 972, 699 F. Supp. 309 (1988).
Respondents argue that the duty drawback amount received is tied
directly to the amount of the export sales on which it is based and
that this amount constitutes the rebate of a tax imposed directly upon
the foreign like product, with in the meaning of Section 773(a)(6)(iii)
of the Act. Respondents urge the Department to adjust USP for their
claimed duty drawback amounts.
Department's Position: We agree with the Committee and have not
granted the adjustment for the simplified duty drawback amounts
received by Chung Woo, Kumho, and Ssang Yong. As we stated in the
preliminary results, we did not adjust the USP for duty drawback for
respondents that reported it using the simplified method.
As noted by the Committee, we apply a two-pronged test to determine
whether a respondent has fulfilled the statutory requirements for a
duty drawback adjustment (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 FR 10900, 10950
(February 28, 1995)). Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides for an
upward adjustment to USP for duty drawback on import duties which have
been rebated (or which have not been collected) by reason of the
exportation of the subject merchandise to the United States. In
accordance with this provision, we will grant a duty drawback
adjustment if we determine that (1) import duties and rebates are
directly linked to and are dependent upon one another, and (2) the
company claiming the adjustment can demonstrate that there are
sufficient imports of raw materials to account for the duty drawback
received on exports of the manufactured product. The CIT consistently
has accepted this application of the law. See Far Eastern Machinery,
688 F. Supp. at 612, aff'd. on remand, 699 F. Supp. at 311; Carlisle
Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 657 F. Supp. 1287, 1289 (1987);
Huffy Corp. v. United States, 10 CIT 215-216, 632 F. Supp.
The Department's two-pronged test meets the requirements of the
statute. The first prong of the test requires the Department ``to
analyze whether the foreign country in question makes entitlement to
duty drawback dependent upon the payment of import duties.'' Far East
Machinery, 699 F. Supp. at 311. This ensures that a duty drawback
adjustment will be made only where the drawback received by the
manufacturer is contingent on import duties paid or accrued. The second
prong requires the foreign producer to show that it imported a
sufficient amount of raw materials (upon which it paid import duties)
to account for the exports, based on which it claimed rebates. Id.
The respondents that reported duty drawback under the Korean
simplified method fail both prongs of this test. With respect to the
first criterion, these respondents stated in their rebuttal brief that
the Korean government determines the simplified drawback amount using
average import duties paid by companies that claimed duty drawback
through the individual reporting method. (Companies that claim drawback
using the individual, not simplified, reporting method must provide
information to the government regarding actual import duties paid on
inputs used in the production of the exported merchandise for which
they claim drawback.) Accordingly, unlike companies that claimed
drawback using the individual reporting method (see Comment 4, below),
the companies that used the simplified reporting method were unable to
demonstrate a connection between payment of import duties and receipt
of duty drawback on exports of steel wire rope. Such companies also
fail the second prong of our test because they did not demonstrate that
they had sufficient imports of raw materials to account for the duty
drawback received on exports of the manufactured product. Therefore we
have not adjusted USP for drawback claimed by Chung Woo, Kumho, and
Ssang Yong.
Comment 4: The Committee argues that the Department should not
adjust the USP for duty drawback claimed by Chun Kee and Manho. It
claims that, even though these companies claim that
[[Page 55969]]
they use the individual duty drawback method, neither company
demonstrated that it has fulfilled the second prong of the Department's
test by showing that there were sufficient imports of raw materials to
account for the duty drawback received on the exports of the subject
merchandise. The Committee contends that the Department's questionnaire
requires respondents to explain how duty drawback is calculated and to
provide worksheets in support of the narrative response. The Committee
claims that neither respondent made any attempt to demonstrate that
there were sufficient raw material imports to account for the duty
drawback received on the exports of the manufactured product, nor did
respondents provide any calculations in support of their claimed
adjustment aside from listing the amount of duty drawback received.
Respondents contend that the Department verified in a prior review
the system under which duty drawback was received and that they
accurately responded to the Department's questionnaires in the present
review. They claim that they answered all of the questions regarding
duty drawback, and, if the Committee believed that the responses of
both companies were inadequate, the Committee should have raised the
issue prior to the issuance of the preliminary results of review.
Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee. We are
satisfied that, under the individual method of applying for duty
drawback, Korean companies are required to provide adequate information
that shows that they had sufficient imports of raw materials to account
for the duty drawback received on exports of the manufactured product.
This satisfies the second prong of the duty drawback test as mentioned
above and is consistent with our practice in the preliminary and final
results of the first review. See Preliminary Results at 14421, 14422
and Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 63499, 63506 (December
11, 1995). In addition, we are satisfied that under the individual duty
drawback method Korea makes entitlement to duty drawback dependent upon
the payment of import duties, which satisfies the first prong of the
duty drawback test.
Comment 5: The Committee contends that the Department should not
adjust Sung Jin and Ssang Yong's home market prices for credit
expenses. The Committee claims that Sung Jin failed to provide adequate
documentation in response to the Department's initial and supplemental
requests for information regarding this expense. Specifically, the
Committee provides three reasons to support its argument that Sung
Jin's response was insufficient to support the claimed adjustment, as
follows: (1) Sung Jin failed to provide any documentary support for the
balance of short-term borrowing for October 1994 as required by the
Department; (2) the sample documents provided by Sung Jin in support of
the interest paid refer to only one of the banks to which Sung Jin paid
interest; and (3) there is no documentary evidence in support of the
interest paid or the balance of short-term borrowing except for one
month in 1994.
The Committee claims that Ssang Yong failed to: (1) Provide any
documentary support for its cumulative daily balance; (2) provide
worksheets describing how it calculated each customer-specific
collection period; and (3) report the average collection period for
certain home market customers for which a home market credit expense
was claimed. The Committee cites Sonco Steel Tube Div., Ferrum, Inc. v.
United States, 12 CIT 745, 751, 694 F. Supp. 959, 964 (1988), quoted in
NSK Ltd. v. United States, 17 CIT 1185, 1188, 837 F. Supp. 437 (1993),
in support of its argument that the burden of demonstrating entitlement
to a circumstance-of-sale adjustment is on the party requesting the
adjustment.
Respondents assert that both Sung Jin and Ssang Yong responded
fully to the Department's questionnaire and that the Department decided
correctly that the responses were adequate. They claim that they gave
details concerning their home market credit expense as requested and
that the Department acknowledged their validity implicitly by accepting
the information provided and using it in its preliminary results of
review.
Department's Position: We disagree with the Committee and have
accepted respondents claims for an adjustment to home market prices for
credit expenses. Both companies responded adequately to our initial and
supplemental questionnaires regarding this expense.
Our initial questionnaire requested an explanation of the
calculation of the credit expense, including the source of the short-
term interest rates used in this calculation. Sung Jin provided a
general explanation of the credit expense and, regarding the short-term
interest used in this calculation, provided the loan balance and
interest payments for each month of 1994 (Sung Jin calculated its POR-
average short-term rate by dividing interest paid over loans received).
In our supplemental questionnaire, we asked Sung Jin to provide further
information regarding the source of the interest rates used in
calculating this expense. Sung Jin provided a sample of source
documentation to back up its calculation of the short-term interest
rate. Specifically, the company provided the names of the banks from
which they borrowed during one of the POR months (October 1994), as
well as a sample bank statement.
We consider this information provided by Sung Jin to be responsive
to our requests for information. We did not ask Sung Jin to provide all
backup documentation to support its calculation of its short-term
interest rate but instead requested that the company provide the source
of its calculated rate. In Sung Jin's case, this source is the monthly
loan balances and interest payments made by the company during 1994.
Sung Jin appropriately provided each monthly loan balance and interest
payment, and it provided source documentation regarding one of the POR
months. In addition, Sung Jin adequately explained its overall
calculation of its credit expense.
For Ssang Yong, we are also satisfied that it provided adequate
information regarding the calculation of its credit expense. While, as
the Committee argued, Ssang Yong did not provide source documents
regarding its cumulative daily loan balance and interest incurred
(which Ssang Yong used to calculate its short-term interest rate), we
did not ask for backup documentary support for its cumulative daily
balance but instead asked for the source of the interest rate, which it
did provide. With respect to the customer-specific average collection
period, Ssang Yong provided such periods for most of its customers and
provided a detailed breakout of the calculation of this period for one
customer. The calculation methodology Ssang Yong used was the same for
each customer. We are satisfied that Ssang Yong provided accurate
responses to our requests for information.
Comment 6: The Committee contends that the Department erred in
indicating that Myung Jin had no individual rate from any prior segment
of this proceeding. It claims that, in the course of assigning Myung
Jin a no-shipments rate, the Department mistakenly stated that Myung
Jin has no individual rate from any segment of this proceeding. The
Committee asserts that Myung Jin has a prior rate of 1.51 percent from
the 1992-1994 administrative review and that, in accordance with
Department precedent, a respondent with no shipments during the POR
should receive the same rate that it most recently received in a
previously completed segment of the proceeding.
[[Page 55970]]
Department's Position: We agree with the Committee that Myung Jin
previously received a rate of 1.51 percent. This is the rate assigned
to it in the 1992-1994 administrative review and remains the rate
applicable to Myung Jin, given that it did not make shipments of
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Final Results of Review
We determine the following percentage weighted-average margins
exist for the period March 1, 1994, through February 28, 1995:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic & Pacific.......................................... 1.51
Boo Kook Corporation........................................ 1.51
Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd......................... 0.01
Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd..................................... 0.04
Dae Heung Industrial Co..................................... (\1\)
Dae Kyung Metal............................................. 1.51
Dong-Il Metal............................................... 1.51
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd........................ 1.51
Dong Young Rope............................................. 1.51
Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc....................................... 1.51
Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc...................................... 1.51
Korea Sangsa Co............................................. (\1\)
Korope Co................................................... 1.51
Kumho Rope.................................................. 0.01
Kwang Shin Ind.............................................. 1.51
Kwangshin Rope.............................................. 1.51
Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd...................................... 0.00
Myung Jin Co................................................ (\2\) 1.51
Seo Hae Ind................................................. 1.51
Seo Jin Rope................................................ 1.51
Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd.............................. 0.06
Sung Jin.................................................... 0.00
Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc........................ (\1\)
TSK (Korea) Co., Ltd........................................ (\1\)
Yeonsin Metal............................................... 0.18(\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate
from any segment of this proceeding.
\2\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant
segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between export price and normal value may vary from the
percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions on each exporter directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be those rates established above (except that, if the
rate for a firm is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash
deposit of zero will be required for that firm); (2) for previously
reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (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; and (4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
or any previous review or the original investigation, the cash deposit
rate will be 1.51 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the
LTFV Final Determination (58 FR 11029).
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification
of the 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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: October 22, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-27858 Filed 10-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
