[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66255-66260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31980]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-822]
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From The People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 13, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results
of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
helical spring lock washers (HSLWs) from the People's Republic of China
(PRC) (61 FR 42000). This review covers shipments of this merchandise
to the United States during the period October 1, 1994 through
September 30, 1995. We gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on our preliminary results. Based upon our analysis of the
comments received we have changed the results from those presented in
the preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4733.
Background
The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping
duty order on HSLWs from the PRC on October 19, 1993 (58 FR 53914). On
October 5, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register (60
FR 52149) a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on HSLWs from the PRC covering the period
October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995.
On October 30 and 31, 1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a),
petitioner, Shakeproof Industrial Products of Illinois Works, and
Zhejiang Wanxin Group, Co., Ltd, (ZWG), respectively, requested that we
conduct an administrative review of ZWG, also known as Hangzhou Spring
Washer Plant. We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping
duty administrative review on November 16, 1995 (60 FR 57573).
On August 13, 1996, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of this review of the antidumping duty
order on HSLWs from the PRC (61 FR 42000). We held a hearing on
September 30, 1996. The Department has now completed this review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the statute 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 stated, all citations to the
Department's regulations are references to the regulations as amended
by the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11,
1995 (60 FR 25130).
[[Page 66256]]
Scope of Review
The products covered by this review are HSLWs of carbon steel, of
carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non heat-
treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are
designed to: (1) function as a spring to compensate for developed
looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly; (2)
distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and (3)
provide a hardened bearing surface. The scope does not include internal
or external tooth washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made
of other metals, such as copper.
HSLWs subject to this review are currently classifiable under
subheading 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience
and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
This review covers one exporter of HSLWs from the PRC, ZWG, and the
period October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received case and rebuttal briefs from
petitioner, ZWG, and the American Association of Fastener Importers
(AAFI), an interested party. At the request of the petitioner, we held
a public hearing on September 30, 1996.
Comment 1: ZWG asserts that the Department may not value wire rod
based on Indian import prices from countries that the Department has
found to be dumping or subsidizing exports. ZWG states that, for more
than 80 percent of the steel bar and rod covered by the Indian import
statistics, the Department has made dumping or subsidy findings. ZWG
contends that the antidumping statute and court rulings prohibit the
use of dumped or subsidized prices to value factors of production. ZWG
cites the House Report to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, with respect to factors of production: ``In valuing such factors,
Commerce shall avoid using any prices which it has reason to believe or
suspect may be dumped or subsidized prices * * *.'' ZWG contends that
the Department has expressly acknowledged the House Report in Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron
Construction Castings From the People's Republic of China (Construction
Castings), 57 FR 10644 (March 27, 1992), citing Tehnoimportexport, UCF
America Inc. v. U.S., 783 F. Supp. 1401 (CIT 1991) (Tehnoimportexport).
ZWG states that the Court of International Trade (CIT), in
Tehnoimportexport, interpreted the House Report's ``believe or
suspect'' standard to mean that the Department correctly rejected all
Yugoslavian steel export prices, where the Department had found non-
product specific export subsidies for Yugoslavian steel. ZWG argues
that the CIT, quoting China National Metal & Minerals Import & Export
Corp. v. United States, 674 F. Supp. 1482 (CIT 1987), pointed out that
``the main consideration is the unreliability of the price information
due to the unknown dumping margin if any.'' ZWG asserts that the
``believe or suspect'' standard requires the Department to reject any
export price to any country if the Department has found the export
price to be dumped or subsidized in the United States.
ZWG argues that the Department has an established practice not to
value factors based on export prices from countries that are subject to
dumping or subsidy findings in the United States. ZWG asserts that, in
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China, 58 FR
48833 (September 20, 1993) (Lock Washers), the Department acknowledged
the practice of not considering pricing information from any country
found by the Department to be selling dumped or subsidized merchandise.
ZWG contends that the Department reiterated this policy in Partial
Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers From the People's Republic
of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995) (Drawer Slides). ZWG contends that
the Department rejected the use of actual prices of cold-rolled steel
imported from Korea on the grounds that the Korean steel is subject to
dumping and subsidy findings in the United States. ZWG argues that the
Department reached this determination despite the fact that there had
never been any finding that Korean steel imported into China was dumped
or subsidized.
ZWG argues that the Department ignored its established practice in
the preliminary results of this review and the simultaneously announced
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 41994
(August 13, 1996) (Lock Washers Review), despite the fact that almost
all of the prices originated from countries found to be subsidizing
exports. ZWG asserts that the Department justified its decision by
stating that there is no evidence that India has found dumping or
subsidizing of steel imports into India. ZWG contends that this
reasoning contradicts the established practice that requires the
Department to reject import prices for products for which the United
States has made dumping or subsidy findings, whether or not the
importing country has made such findings. ZWG argues that the
Department does not require a finding of dumping or subsidization in
the importing country to fulfill the ``reason to believe or suspect''
standard, and that a finding by the Department fulfills that standard;
therefore, the Department's findings with respect to bar and rod
preclude the use of surrogate values from certain exporting countries.
ZWG argues that the Department, therefore, may not use the Indian
import statistics for valuing steel wire rod, to the extent that the
United States has made dumping and subsidy findings from the country
that exported the wire rod to India. ZWG argues that, if the Department
decides to use Indian import statistics to value wire rod, the
Department must exclude Indian imports of bar and rod that the
Department has found to be dumped or subsidized. Therefore, ZWG argues
the Department may use Indian import statistics of bar and rod only
from Indonesia, Italy, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Thailand.
AAFI states that, although it supports the Department's preliminary
determination in general, it believes the Department should not have
based its surrogate material cost for steel wire rod on Indian import
statistics. AAFI argues that the Department cannot use Indian import
statistics from countries the Department previously determined to be
shipping dumped or subsidized product. AAFI states that the fact that
steel wire rod has been subject to dumping determinations raises a
doubt as to the accuracy of the data.
Petitioner argues that the fact that certain third countries are
subject to a U.S. antidumping or countervailing duty order does not
preclude the Department from using data related to Indian imports from
those countries. Petitioner argues that, absent evidence which shows
that exports of the merchandise to the surrogate country are themselves
dumped or subsidized, the Department should use that data. Petitioner
points out that ZWG made the same argument in the Lock Washers Review
and no new arguments have been made in this review. Petitioner notes
that the Department rejected ZWG's argument in the first review and
[[Page 66257]]
argues that, contrary to ZWG's assertions, the prior administrative
decisions and court case cited by ZWG support the Department's position
in the first review. For example, in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Romania; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 1169 (January 11, 1991)
(TRBs From Romania), the Department rejected the use of Yugoslavian
steel prices (domestic and export) because of the prevalence of dumping
and countervailing duty cases directly involving Yugoslavian steel, and
instead, the Department used Yugoslavian import prices for steel.
Petitioner argues that, in the Lock Washers less than fair value (LTFV)
investigation, the Department rejected the argument that Indian import
data from countries involved in ``dumping'' should be disregarded and
used Indian import prices from countries subject to antidumping and
countervailing duty orders. Petitioner argues that, in Drawer Slides,
the Department rejected actual Chinese import prices from Korea,
stating that ``cold-rolled steel imports from Korea are subject to U.S.
antidumping and countervailing duties orders and therefore the prices
are likely to be unsuitable for use in this context.''
Petitioner argues that ZWG cited Tehnoimportexport for the
proposition that the Department should reject the Indian import prices
as it rejected the use of export Yugoslavian steel prices. Petitioner
quotes the CIT in that case:
Commerce's decision in this case, however, was based on final
antidumping determinations upon comparable merchandise and two final
countervailing duty determinations in which Commerce determined that
countervailable, non-product specific export subsidies were bestowed
upon exports of steel products. Their decision was also based on
several European Community (EC) cases. In total, there was
substantial evidence to allow a reasonable mind to conclude that
there were dumping and subsidies favoring Yugoslavian steel exports.
Tehnoimportexport, 16 CIT 13, 18 (1992).
Petitioner asserts that there is no statutory or Department
regulatory provision that requires the rejection of surrogate import
prices based on a ``reason to believe or suspect'' standard.
Furthermore, petitioner argues that ZWG has failed to cite any case to
support its contention that the Department has an established ``reason
to believe or suspect'' practice for rejecting import prices in
determining a surrogate value. Petitioner argues that the legislative
intent of the 1988 statutory amendments to which ZWG refers do not
support the rigid approach ZWG proposes. Petitioner argues that the
Department would soon have to make a company-by-company analysis and a
review of all third country (not just surrogate country) antidumping
and countervailing duty actions if the Department were to accept ZWG's
position. Petitioner argues that Congress did not expect the Department
to conduct such special investigations. Rather, petitioner argues, the
intent of Congress was to afford relief to a U.S. industry and to
prohibit the use by the Department of prices that are demonstrably
``low'' as a consequence of dumping or subsidization. Petitioner
asserts that the standard that the Department should use is whether the
Indian imports in fact benefit from dumped or subsidized prices.
Petitioner argues that, in determining the surrogate for 1060 steel
wire rod in India, the Department is trying to determine the price in
India, and that import prices are simply a guide.
Petitioner asserts that, if prices of Indian steel imports reflect
dumping and subsidization, those prices should be low, not high.
Petitioner argues that the opposite is the case here. Petitioner argues
that, if India has imposed antidumping or countervailing duty measures
against steel imports, the decision would be different.
Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. The facts do not
establish a reasonable basis to ``believe or suspect'' the imports of
wire rod into India are dumped or subsidized. The Indian government has
not determined that steel imports into India are dumped or subsidized.
As stated in the Lock Washers Review, the fact that the Department has
made determinations of sales at less than fair value into the United
States is not a sufficient basis for a belief or suspicion that those
countries also dumped imports into India. Further, there is no evidence
that any general subsidies applied to production and exports of carbon
steel wire rod to India.
We disagree with ZWG that the use of the Indian import prices from
countries subject to U.S. antidumping and countervailing determinations
is inconsistent with prior Department decisions. In Lock Washers,
although parties argued against using import prices into India from
countries found to be selling at prices below fair market value, the
Department did use Indian import statistics for steel wire rod from
countries subject to antidumping and countervailing duty
investigations. In TRBs From Romania, the Department rejected the use
of Yugoslavian steel prices and used import steel prices into
Yugoslavia. As noted by petitioner, the CIT upheld the decision not to
use Yugoslavian export prices in Tehnoimportexport.
Although the basis for the rejection in Drawer Slides of the import
prices from Korea, a country subject to an antidumping order by the
United States, is not fully discussed in the Notice of the final
determination, we do not find that there is a per se prohibition on
using third country import statistics as surrogate values when those
statistics include imports from countries subject to U.S. antidumping
orders. Rather, the preference is to use the most accurate surrogate
data available in the circumstances of a particular case. For this
reason, we decline to follow Drawer Slides in this review.
We also disagree with ZWG's claim that the legislative history of
the Omnibus Trade Act of 1988 compels us to reject the Indian import
statistics. As stated in the House Report, Congress did not intend for
the Department to conduct a formal investigation to insure that the
prices it uses in valuing factors of production are not dumped or
subsidized. As stated above, there are insufficient grounds to
``believe or suspect'' that the prices of wire rod in the Indian import
statistics are dumped and subsidized and should not be used as a
surrogate to value carbon steel wire rod.
Comment 2: ZWG argues that the Department should value steel using
the domestic Indian prices quoted from the Steel Scenario (a monthly
journal, published by Sparke Steel & Economy Research Centre Pvt.
Ltd.). ZWG argues that it is the Department's practice to give priority
to surrogate values that are (a) contemporaneous with the period of
investigation; (b) product-specific; and (c) tax-exclusive. ZWG asserts
that the Steel Scenario price information is more contemporaneous with
the period of review (POR) than are the Indian import statistics used
in the preliminary results. ZWG argues that more than half the Indian
import statistics used in the preliminary results are from before this
period of review. ZWG also argues that the Steel Scenario prices are
size-specific and, therefore, can be specific to ZWG's actual inputs.
ZWG asserts that information is available to make the price data tax-
exclusive.
AAFI asserts that the Department should use the most accurate input
data on the record, which it believes to be the steel wire rod prices,
submitted by ZWG, adjusted to remove excise duty and statutory levy.
AAFI contends that the data submitted by ZWG is the only data which
provides size-specific prices
[[Page 66258]]
that match the steel wire rod used by ZWG. AAFI further states that the
basic principle of determining surrogate costs is to accurately
estimate the costs of production of the good in the surrogate country,
which includes using domestically sourced inputs. AAFI maintains that
the data submitted by ZWG is based upon actual prices of steel wire rod
in India and is a more accurate reflection of the price than import
statistics, especially import statistics that are suspect.
Petitioner argues that, as with the Steel Authority of India
Limited (SAIL) data that ZWG proposed in the first review, the Steel
Scenario data do not address the important issue of chemistry, while
the Indian import statistics do. Petitioner argues that, with the
exception of Drawer Slides, the Department has not used Indian domestic
steel prices since the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.
Petitioner also argues that the Department used Indian imports covering
most of the period, and that the Indian imports are contemporaneous.
Petitioner also argues that, in the overwhelming number of NME cases
involving the People's Republic of China, the Department has used
Indian import statistics.
Department's Position: We disagree with ZWG. ZWG has not
established that there is a stronger factual basis for using the Steel
Scenario data than there is for using the import statistics. As stated
in the first administrative review of this case, the scope of this
review covers HSLWs made from stainless steel, carbon alloy steel, or
carbon steel. The grade or chemistry of the steel is an important
consideration, as evidenced by the range of HSLWs covered by the order.
The chemistry of the steel determines the mechanical and physical
properties of the steel, and, therefore, is the driving factor in
determining the end use. Therefore, in this case, the grade of steel is
a more important consideration for the Department than size when
choosing between different PAPI sources. See Lock Washers Review.
Furthermore, although the Steel Scenario data is more size-specific
than the Indian import statistics, it is less grade-specific. See also,
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the People's Republic of China; Final
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 60 FR 48687 (September
20, 1995). In addition, because the Indian import statistics cover the
majority of the POR, we agree with petitioner that the Indian import
statistics are contemporaneous. Therefore, we have continued to use the
Indian import statistics to value steel wire rod.
Comment 3: Petitioner asserts that the Department should determine
a constructed value for HSLWs which entered the United States from
October 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994 using the statutory minimum
eight percent profit then in effect. Petitioner contends that the
Department wrongly applied the provisions of the antidumping statutory
amendment 19 U.S.C. sec. 1677b(c), which sets no minimum amounts for
profits and selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses on
reviews initiated after January 1, 1995. Petitioner argues that the
Department's application of the statute in the preliminary results to
entries between October 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994 has the effect of
retroactively reducing the antidumping duties on entries of merchandise
which occurred before the effective date of the amendments.
Petitioner's position is that as a tax measure, retroactive application
of the antidumping statute to the disadvantage of a party affected by
those changes is unlawful. Petitioner argues that the remedy provided
by the Congress in the form of antidumping duties cannot be changed
retroactively for entries of the subject merchandise on which the
liability for the antidumping duties has already been attached.
ZWG argues that the Department should apply the current statute to
every U.S. sale covered in this review for purposes of both the future
deposit rate determination and the dumping duty assessment. ZWG
contends that petitioner's argument, current statute, and legislative
history provide no grounds for allowing the Department to apply the law
that existed prior to the URAA to this review. ZWG states that the URAA
amendments must apply to antidumping administrative reviews initiated
on or after January 1, 1995 and the Department must conduct this review
in accordance with the current provisions for calculating profit and
SG&A expenses.
Department's Position: We agree with ZWG. As stated in section
291(2) of the URAA, the URAA amendments apply to antidumping
administrative reviews initiated on or after January 1, 1995. We
disagree with petitioner that application of the URAA amendments to
entries prior to January 1, 1995 is an improper retroactive application
of the antidumping law. The entries between October 1, 1994 and
December 31, 1994 were made subject to estimated antidumping duty
deposits. The antidumping duties assessed may increase or decrease at
the time of assessment pursuant to an administrative review conducted
in accordance with the then current statute. Since this review was
initiated on November 16, 1995, the current antidumping statute, which
was in effect at the time of initiation, applies. Therefore, we are
calculating profit and SG&A for all entries covered by this review in
accordance with the provisions of the current antidumping statute.
Comment 4: Petitioner asserts that, to value the steel input
factor, the Department should consider from the Indian import
statistics three HTS subcategories of steel, 7213.41, 7213.49, and
7213.50, instead of selecting only the one category, 7213.50, which
specifically includes ``1060'' steel. Petitioner contends that, while
it agrees that the Department should use data which is most specific
for valuing factor inputs, it believes it is necessary to understand
that with the tolerances allowed for ``1060'' steel, it is possible
that the steel could be properly classified under one of the other
categories. Petitioner states that the Department used three steel
categories in the antidumping investigation of HSLWs, but concluded in
the final results of the first administrative review that it was no
longer appropriate to use all three subcategories.
ZWG argues that the Department may not use Indian import statistics
classified under HTS 7213.41 and 7213.49 because, it claims, these two
subcategories are irrelevant to the wire rod it uses. ZWG claims to
have demonstrated its use of steel wire rod with 0.6 carbon content
during this POR. ZWG argues that the Department properly determined in
the first administrative review and the preliminary results of this
review that HTS 7213.41 and 7213.49 are not relevant to the carbon
steel wire rod used by ZWG.
AAFI argues that the Department should reject petitioner's claim
that three HTS steel wire rod categories should be used to determine
surrogate steel prices. AAFI claims that HTS 7213.50 most accurately
describes the raw material actually used by ZWG in HSLW production.
Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner that in this
review we must use the three HTS subcategories used in the LTFV
investigation. As in the first administrative review, the 1060 wire rod
used by ZWG is a high carbon steel. Although tolerance levels could
allow a carbon content slightly below 0.6 percent, 1060 grade steel
wire rod imports nevertheless properly would be classified under HTS
7213.50. The HTS subcategories 7312.41 and 7213.49 suggested by the
petitioner contain wire
[[Page 66259]]
rod with a carbon content between .25 and .59 percent carbon.
Therefore, for these final results we continued to use the HTS
subcategory which contains 1060 steel wire rod. See Lock Washers
Review.
Comment 5: Petitioner asserts that the Department should use truck
rates from the August 1993 embassy cable for truck freight values
instead of truck rates derived from The Times of India. Petitioner
argues that the Department's use of the embassy cable, also used in the
final determination of the first review, would maintain consistency
from one review to the next for the same subject merchandise.
Petitioner contends that such consistency promotes predictability and
provides a strong basis for the selection of particular value sources.
Petitioner argues that the Department should continue to use the cable
data unless more contemporaneous and reliable data is provided.
Petitioner further asserts that the Department stated no reason for
changing sources. Additionally, petitioner claims that the truck rates
published in The Times of India, which were taken from a government
study, may have been selectively reviewed, and were not self-verifying.
Petitioner considers the actual government study to be a more reliable
source than the newspaper article and, therefore the government study
should have been used by the Department.
ZWG supports the Department's use of the truck rates reported in
The Times of India. ZWG claims that the rates from The Times of India,
showing truck freight rates as of April 1994, are accurate and more
contemporaneous than the data in the embassy cable. ZWG states that
rates from The Times of India are publicly available published
information, whereas the cable became public only when the Department
made it publicly available. ZWG argues that the Department consistently
determined that the data in The Times of India article is preferable to
the embassy cable for valuing truck freight rates in cases involving
products from the PRC, stating that the Department has used the data
from The Times of India since the investigation of honey from the PRC.
ZWG also references the Department's use of truck freight rate data
from The Times of India in ``Factors Valuation: Final Determination in
the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bicycles from the People's
Republic of China'' (Bicycles), dated April 22, 1996. ZWG claims that
in Bicycles, the Department rejected the respondent's request for the
use of the embassy cable and used data from The Times of India. ZWG
also notes that in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts thereof, Finished
and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke
Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 61 FR 40610 (August 5, 1996), that the
Department reiterated that the truck freight rates in The Times of
India are ``the most recent publicly available published source.''
Referring to Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (Lasko), ZWG also claims that the Department has never
announced a rule that it should adopt values from the first review
merely to be consistent.
AAFI alleges that petitioner's argument for use of the embassy
cable for truck freight valuation is without merit because the embassy
cable is not publicly available information. AAFI contends that the
Department should reject petitioner's argument that The Times of India
article should not be used because it is ``unverifiable.'' AAFI
maintains that it is not clear why petitioner alleges publicly
available published information from The Times of India not to be
'self-verifying,'' while petitioner does believe that the private
embassy cable is 'self-verifying.''
Department's Position: We agree with ZWG and AAFI. The Times of
India article provides the most contemporaneous values for trucking
rates. It is the Department's practice to use surrogate values from
publicly available sources which are the most contemporaneous with the
period of review. While we used the August 1993 embassy cable in the
previous review, the Department's goal is to value non-market economy
factors in as fair and accurate a manner as possible. As the Federal
Circuit expressed in Lasko, the antidumping statute ``simply does not
say--anywhere--that the factors of production must be ascertained in a
single fashion.'' Also, as the Department stated in the Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the Republic of Hungary,
56 FR 41819 (August 23, 1991), 'simply because a particular source was
used in previous reviews of this case does not preclude the Department
from relying on alternate sources if the circumstances necessitate a
change.'' Therefore, we are continuing to use the Times of India
trucking rates as the best available surrogate information for this
review.
Comment 6: Petitioner asserts that the freight charges associated
with the movement of chemicals were not included in the calculations.
Petitioner requests that the Department review the calculations to
ensure that freight charges for chemicals were included.
Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner. We have
reviewed our calculations and have found that the freight charges are
included in the calculation of normal value.
Comments 7: Petitioner objects to the Department's use of a weight-
based rate to determine marine insurance premiums and contends that the
Department should use shipment value to determine the premiums.
Petitioner supports this argument by citing page 22 of the verification
report, which states that marine insurance was provided by a PRC state-
owned company, using a premium based on the value of the shipment.
ZWG agrees with the Department's determination that marine
insurance premiums should be based upon weight. ZWG argues that no
value-based marine insurance data are publicly available through other
antidumping proceedings, nor were any submitted by petitioner.
Department's Position: We agree with ZWG. There was no appropriate
marine insurance surrogate based on value submitted for or available in
this review. Therefore, we are continuing to value marine insurance
based on weight of the subject merchandise.
Additional Change for the Final Results
For these final results we have recalculated labor using data from
the Yearbook of Labor Statistics (YLS). As we stated in the Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the
People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996), the Economic
Intelligence Unit report Investing, Licensing & Trading Conditions
Abroad: India (IL&T), released November 1995, reports estimates based
not on actual wage rates, but on rates stipulated in various Indian
laws. Therefore, we have not used IL&T data for the final results. The
YLS provides wage rates on an industry-specific basis. We used the
daily wage rate specified for SIC code 381, ``manufacture of fabricated
metal products, except machinery and equipment,'' because the
description of the various industries this category covers was the best
match for the HSLW industry. Having found the IL&T data to be an
inappropriate source for wage rates, it would be inappropriate to use
the IL&T data to differentiate among skill levels. Because the YLS
provides wage rates from 1990, we inflated the data for the review
period, using the consumer price index, published in the International
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
[[Page 66260]]
Final Results of Reviews
As a result of the comments received, we have changed the results
from those presented in our preliminary results of review:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd......... 10/01/94-09/30/95 38.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between United States price and normal value may vary from
the percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of these final results for all shipments of HSLWs from the
PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) for ZWG, which has a separate rate, and all ZWG exports through
market-economy trading companies, the cash deposit rate will be the
company-specific rate established in these final results of review; (2)
for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 128.63
percent, the PRC rate established in the LTFV investigation of this
case; and (3) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the
PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC
supplier of that exporter.
These deposit rates 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: December 10, 1996.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-31980 Filed 12-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
