[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64058-64062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30755]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-811]
Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent To Revoke
Antidumping Duty Order in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review and intent to revoke antidumping duty order in
part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by the petitioner, the Committee of
Domestic Steel Wire Rope & Specialty Cable Manufacturers, and by Manho
Rope and Wire Ltd. (Manho) and Chun Kee Steel Wire Co. Ltd. (Chun Kee),
respondent manufacturers/exporters of steel wire rope, the Department
of Commerce (the
[[Page 64059]]
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on steel wire rope from the Republic of Korea. The review
covers 12 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the
United States. The review period is March 1, 1995, through February 28,
1996 (the POR).
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 the export
price (EP) and the normal value (NV). Also, if these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we
intend to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to Manho and
Chun Kee based on three years of sales at not less than NV. See Intent
to Revoke, infra. Interested parties are invited to comment on these
preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding are
requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue,
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 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 Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to the current regulations, as amended by the interim regulation
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
On March 26, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 16398) the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from the
Republic of Korea. On March 4, 1996, the Department published a notice
of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' (61 FR 8238) of
this antidumping duty order for the period March 1, 1995, through
February 28, 1996. On April 1, 1996, the petitioner requested an
administrative review of 12 manufacturers/exporters of steel wire rope
from Korea. Manho and Chun Kee, each on April 1, 1996, also requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of
subject merchandise during the POR. We published a notice of initiation
of administrative review on April 25, 1996 (61 FR 18379). The
Department is now conducting this review in accordance with section 751
of the Act.
Unlocated Companies
We were unable to obtain addresses for Hanboo Wire Rope and Seo Jin
Wire Rope and thereafter received confirmation from the U.S. embassy in
Seoul, South Korea, that these companies were closed. In accordance
with our practice with respect to companies to which we cannot send a
questionnaire, we are assigning to these companies the ``All Others''
rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, which is 1.51
percent. See 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).
Non-Shipper
Myung Jin notified us that it did not have shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR, and we confirmed this with the United
States Customs Service.
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we verified
information provided by Chun Kee, Manho, Kumho Wire Rope Mfg., Co.,
Ltd. (Kumho), and Sungjin Company (Sung Jin), using standard
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the
manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the
public versions of the verification reports.
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.
Export Price
For sales to the United States, the Department used EP as defined
in section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold
to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of importation and
the use of constructed export price was not indicated by the facts of
record.
We calculated EP based on ex-factory, f.o.b., c.i.f., c&f, or
delivered to Korean port prices to unrelated purchasers in, or for
exportation to, the United States. We adjusted these prices for billing
adjustments, where applicable. We made adjustments, where applicable,
for domestic brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance,
terminal handling charges, stevedoring charges, wharfage expenses, bill
of lading issuing fees, export license fees, export insurance, domestic
inland freight, containerization expenses and container taxes,
container freight station charges, and shoring charges in accordance
with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We also added duty drawback,
where applicable, for Manho and Chun Kee, pursuant to section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act. We did not make any duty drawback adjustments
for Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd., Inc. (Chung Woo), Kumho, or Ssang Yong
Steel Wire Co., Ltd., because they were unable to demonstrate a
connection between payment of import duties and receipt of duty
drawback on exports of steel wire rope, and 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, consistent with our practice in the previous review (see Steel
Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 55965, 55968 (October 30, 1996) (Steel
Wire Rope II Final)).
No other adjustments to EP were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and
U.S. sales, and absent any information that a particular market
situation in the exporting country does not permit a
[[Page 64060]]
proper comparison, we determined that the quantity of foreign like
product each respondent sold in the exporting country was sufficient to
permit a proper comparison with the sales of the subject merchandise to
the United States, pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, because each
company had sales in its home market which were greater than five
percent of the U.S. market. Therefore, in accordance with section
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the
foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the exporting
country.
We used sales to affiliated customers only where we determined such
sales were made at arm's-length prices, i.e., at prices comparable to
prices at which the firm sold identical merchandise to unrelated
customers.
Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (COP) in
the last completed review for Manho and Chun Kee, we had reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign product under
consideration for the determination of NV in this review may have been
made at prices below the COP, as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii)
of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we
initiated COP investigations of sales by Manho and Chun Kee in the home
market.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed
in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general and
administrative expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental
to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for
shipment. We relied on the home market sales and COP information
provided by Manho and Chun Kee in their questionnaire responses.
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of steel
wire rope were made at prices below COP within an extended period of
time in substantial quantities, and whether such prices permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-
specific COPs to the reported home market prices less any applicable
movement charges, rebates, and direct selling expenses.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of
respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than COP, we
did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we
determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we
disregarded the below-cost sales because we determined that the below-
cost sales were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial
quantities'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act, and based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the
POR we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at
prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Based on this test, we disregarded below cost sales with respect to
Manho and Chun Kee.
Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of
individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales
of the foreign like product. We compared EP sales to sales in the home
market of identical or similar merchandise.
We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first
sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade and at the same level of
trade as the EP, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
We made adjustments, where appropriate, for rebates. We increased home
market price by the amount of U.S. packing costs in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act and reduced it by the amount of home
market packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the
Act. We adjusted for movement expenses in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We also made adjustments, where
applicable, for differences in the physical characteristics of
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56,
we made circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments to NV. We deducted home
market credit expenses, inspection fees, warranty and servicing
expenses and, where appropriate, added U.S. postage fees, U.S. letter
of credit fees, U.S. bank charges, U.S. credit expenses, U.S.
inspection fees, U.S. warranty and servicing expenses, and U.S. product
liability insurance. Prices were reported net of value-added taxes
(VAT) and, therefore, no adjustment for VAT was necessary.
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as NV
for those U.S. sales for which we could not determine the NV based on
home market sales pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of the Act either
because there were no appropriate sales or because we disregarded
below-cost sales pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act. We calculated
CV, in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, as the sum of the
cost of manufacturing (COM) of the product sold in the United States,
home market SG&A expenses, home market profit, and U.S. packing
expenses. The COM of the product sold in the United States is the sum
of direct material, direct labor, and variable and fixed factory
overhead expenses. For home market SG&A expenses and profit, we used
the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in
the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country,
in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, unless these actual
data were not available. If these actual data were not available, we
used the actual amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in
connection with the production and sale, for consumption in the foreign
country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of
products as the subject merchandise, in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. In accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the
Act, we made COS adjustments to CV by deducting home market direct
selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Use of Facts Otherwise Available
We preliminarily determine, 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. and Yeon Sin Metal 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.
[[Page 64061]]
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 because the
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin).
In this case, we have used the highest rate from any prior segment
of the proceeding, 1.51 percent, as adverse facts available. This rate
is the highest available rate and, to the best of our knowledge, there
are no circumstances that indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as adverse facts available.
Intent To Revoke
Chun Kee and Manho requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b),
revocation of the order with respect to their sales of the merchandise
in question and submitted the certification required by 19 CFR
353.25(b)(1). In addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii),
Chun Kee and Manho have agreed in writing to their immediate
reinstatement in the order, as long as any producer or reseller is
subject to the order, if the Department concludes under 19 CFR
353.22(f) that Chun Kee and Manho, subsequent to revocation, sold
merchandise at less than NV. Based on the preliminary results in this
review and the two preceding reviews (see Steel Wire Rope From the
Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 60 FR 63499 (December 11, 1995), and Steel Wire Rope II Final),
Chun Kee and Manho have demonstrated three consecutive years of sales
at not less than NV.
Given the results of the two preceding reviews, if the final
results of this review demonstrate that Chun Kee and Manho sold the
merchandise at not less than NV, and if we determine that it is not
likely that Chun Kee and Manho will sell the subject merchandise at
less then NV in the future, we intend to revoke the order with respect
to merchandise produced and exported by Chun Kee and Manho.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period March 1, 1995, through February
28, 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boo Kook Corporation....................................... 1.51
Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd........................ 0.01
Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd.................................... 0.24
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd....................... 1.51
Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc...................................... 1.51
Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd.............................. 0.01
Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd..................................... 0.00
Myung Jin Co. \1\ 1.51.....................................
Seo Jin Rope............................................... 1.51
Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd............................. 0.01
Sung Jin................................................... 0.03
Yeonsin Metal.............................................. 1.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. Rate is from the last relevant
segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice,
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit
with each argument: (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief
summary of the arguments. 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. 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 written comments
or at the hearing, within 120 days from the publication of these
preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. For duty
assessment purposes, we calculated an importer-specific assessment rate
by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to
each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of subject
merchandise sold to each of the respective importers. This specific
rate calculated for each importer will be used for the assessment of
antidumping duties on the relevant entries of subject merchandise
during the POR.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of steel wire rope from Korea 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
administrative review (except that for companies whose weighted-average
margins are less than 0.5 percent, i.e., are de minimis, no cash
deposit will be required); (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, the 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, the cash deposit rate will be 1.51
[[Page 64062]]
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation
(58 FR 16398, March 26, 1993).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility 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 751(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR
353.22, and 19 CFR 353.25.
Dated: November 26, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-30755 Filed 12-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
