[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53875-53877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26918]
[[Page 53875]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-583-810]
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part
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 is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The review covers 18
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States
for the period September 1, 1996, through August 31, 1997. The review
indicates the existence of margins for all firms.
We have preliminarily determined 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 equal to the difference between export
price and the NV.
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 DATES: October 7, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner (AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office Four, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4195 or 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 (``The Act'') by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's
(``the Department's'') regulations refer to the regulations codified at
19 CFR part 351 (62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997).
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 26, 1997, the petitioner, Consolidated International
Automotive, Inc. (``Consolidated''), requested that we conduct an
administrative review for the period September 1, 1996, through August
31, 1997. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 30, 1997 (62 FR
58703), and sent questionnaire 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''), Goldwinate
Associate, Inc. (``Goldwinate''), Gourmet Equipment (``Taiwan'')
Corporation (Gourmet''), Hwan Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd. (``Hwan''),
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, Anmax and Trade Union responded to the
questionnaire.
Questionnaire and were sent to Transcend, Kwan How, Kwan Ta,
Everspring, Gingen, Goldwanate, and Kuang were returned as
undeliverable. These firms will receive the ``all others'' rate
established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, which was
6.93 percent.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the this review are shipments of one-piece and
two-piece chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, more than
\11/16\ inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal
(hex) size of at least \3/4\ inches (19.04 millimeters) but not more
than one inch (25.4 mm), plus or minus \1/16\ of an inch (1.59 mm). The
term ``unfinish'' refers to 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 in
the scope of this review. Chrome-plated lock nuts are also not in the
scope of this review.
During the period of review (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading
7318.16.00.00. Although the HTS subheading is provided for convience
and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
review is dispositive.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Because the following firms did not respond to the Department's
antidumping questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that in
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, the use of facts available
is appropriate for Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto, Hwen, San
Chien, San Shing, and Wing. In addition, while Trade Union and Anmax
provided some information in response to the Departments questionnaire,
the Department determined that their submissions were substantially
deficient. Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department sent
supplemental questionnaires to Trade Union and Anmax so that they would
cure the deficiencies. However, the Department received no responses
from these companies within the designated deadline. Thus, we
preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is also
warranted with respect to these companies. The Department finds that,
in not responding to its questionnaire or to its supplemental
questionnaire, the aforementioned firms have failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of their ability to comply with requests for
information from the Department. Because necessary information is not
available on the record with regard to sales by these firms as a result
of their withholding the requested information, we must make our
preliminary determination based on facts otherwise available pursuant
to section 776(a) of the Act.
Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the
Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of the
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information
derived from such secondary information as the petition, the final
determination, a previous administrative review, or other information
placed on the record. In this case, we have used the highest rate from
any prior segment of the proceeding, which is 10.67 percent. This rate
was
[[Page 53876]]
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.
The Department also sent questionnaires and supplemental to
Gourmet, which provided timely responses. However, as in previous
reviews, the Department has again determined that, due to the nature of
Gourmet's accounting system, it is not able to reconcile the data
Gourmet submitted in its responses to our questionnaires with its
financial statements. 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. Section 776(a)(2)(D) states that the Department
``shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available
in reaching the applicable determination under this title'' if an
interested party or any other person provides information but the
information can not be verified. Although Gourmet is well aware of the
Department's requirements for verifiable submissions, it has provided
information which the Department could not verify. Because its
submission is not reconcilable, it is not verifiable, and we have
determined in accordance with section 776(b) that Gourmet has failed to
cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Thus we are
applying adverse facts available to Gourmet. See Memorandum from Thomas
Futtner to Holly Kuga, dated August 20, 1998, Therefore, as adverse
facts available, we have determined to use 10.67 percent, which is the
highest calculated rate for any firm in any segment of the proceeding.
Because information from prior reviews constitutes secondary
information, section 776(c) provides that the Department shall, to the
extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. That 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. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2nd
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. 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 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 preliminary determine that the
following margins exist for the period September 1, 1996, through
August 31, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Goldwinate Associates, Inc................................... 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 Shin 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may also
request a hearing within ten days of publication. If requested, a
hearing will be held as early as convenient for the parties but not
later than 30 days after the date of publication or the first work day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30
days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs,
which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed
not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department will issue a notice of the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such briefs, within 120 days from the
publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service 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 the U.S. Customs Service.
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 warehouses, 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 original 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 to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of
[[Page 53877]]
antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during
this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 30, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary; Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-26918 Filed 10-06-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
