97-3634. Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 6758-6761]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-3634]
    
    
    
    [[Page 6758]]
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [A-557-805]
    
    
    Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
    Review: Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    SUMMARY: In response to a request by petitioner and four producers/
    exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the 
    Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping 
    duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. The review covers 
    five manufacturers/exporters. The period of review (the POR) is October 
    1, 1993, through September 30, 1994.
        We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
    foreign market value (FMV) by all of the companies subject to this 
    review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results 
    of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs 
    Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
        We invite interested parties 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: February 13, 1997.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel LaCivita or Robert 
    Blankenbaker, Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import 
    Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
    Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
    20230; telephone: (202) 482-4740 or (202) 482-0989, respectively.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On October 7, 1992, the Department published in the Federal 
    Register (57 FR 46150) the antidumping duty order on extruded rubber 
    thread from Malaysia. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(2), in 
    October 1994 the petitioner and the following producers and exporters 
    of extruded rubber thread requested an administrative review of the 
    antidumping order covering the period October 1, 1993, through 
    September 30, 1994: Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. (``Heveafil''), Rubberflex Sdn. 
    Bhd. (``Rubberflex''), Filati Lastex Elastfibre (Malaysia) 
    (``Filati''), Rubfil Sdn. Bhd. (``Rubfil'') and Rubber Thread (``Rubber 
    Thread'). On November 14, 1994, the Department published its notice of 
    initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
    extruded rubber thread from Malaysia for Heveafil, Filati, Rubberflex, 
    Rubfil and Rubber Thread (59 FR 56459). Rubber Thread reported that it 
    made no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR.
    
    Scope of the Review
    
        The product covered by this review is extruded rubber thread. 
    Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained 
    by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any 
    cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 
    140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. 
    Extruded rubber thread is currently classified under subheading 
    4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
    (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
    purposes. Our written description of the scope of this review is 
    dispositive.
    
    Applicable Statute and Regulations
    
        Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
    Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
    existed on December 31, 1994. We are conducting this administrative 
    review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
    amended (the Act).
    
    Such or Similar Merchandise
    
        In determining similar merchandise comparisons, pursuant to section 
    771(16) of the Act, we considered the following physical 
    characteristics, which appear in order of importance: (1) quality 
    (i.e., first vs. second); (2) size; (3) finish; (4) color; (5) special 
    qualities; (6) uniformity; (7) elongation; (8) tensile strength; and 
    (9) modulus. With the exception of quality, these characteristics are 
    in accordance with matching criteria set forth in the January 26, 1994, 
    memorandum to the file on the record of this review. Regarding quality, 
    we have added this characteristic in order to address respondents' 
    concerns regarding differences in value related to significant 
    differences in quality.
        Regarding color, respondents assigned separate codes to each shade 
    of color. We reassigned color codes to sales of subject merchandise, in 
    accordance with the instructions contained in the questionnaire. This 
    resulted in our treating all shades of a given color as equally similar 
    to each other instead of treating a specific shade as most similar to 
    another specific shade.
    
    Fair Value Comparisons
    
        To determine whether sales of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia 
    to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the 
    United States price (USP) to the foreign market value (FMV), as 
    specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value'' 
    sections of this notice.
    
    United States Price
    
        We based USP on purchase price (PP), in accordance with section 
    772(b) of the Act, when the subject merchandise was sold to unrelated 
    purchasers in the United States prior to importation and when the 
    exporter's sales price (ESP) methodology of section 772(c) of the Act 
    was not otherwise indicated. In addition, where sales to the first 
    unrelated purchaser took place after importation into the United 
    States, we based USP on ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the 
    Act.
        We based purchase price on packed, CIF prices to the first 
    unrelated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions from USP, 
    where appropriate, for rebates, foreign inland freight, foreign 
    brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs 
    duty, harbor maintenance and merchandise processing fees, and U.S. 
    brokerage and handling expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) 
    of the Act.
        For sales made from the inventory of the U.S. branch office, we 
    based USP on ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. We 
    calculated ESP based on packed, delivered prices to unrelated customers 
    in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate, for 
    rebates. We also made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign 
    brokerage, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. 
    brokerage, entry fees, harbor maintenance and processing fees, and 
    inspection charges. In accordance with section 772(e)(2) of the Act, we 
    made additional deductions, where appropriate, for credit and indirect 
    selling expenses.
    
    Best Information Available
    
        Section 776(b) of the Act requires the Department to use the best 
    information available (BIA) if it is unable to verify the accuracy of 
    the information submitted. In deciding what to use as BIA, the 
    Department's regulations provide that the Department may take into 
    account whether a party refuses to provide requested information. See 
    19
    
    [[Page 6759]]
    
    CFR 353.37(b). Thus, the Department may determine, on a case-by-case 
    basis, what is the BIA.
        In cases where we have determined to use total BIA, we apply a two 
    tier methodology of BIA depending on whether the companies attempted to 
    or refused to cooperate in these reviews. See Antifriction Bearings 
    (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et 
    al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Partial 
    Termination of Administrative Reviews, and Revocation in Part of 
    Antidumping Duty Orders, 60 FR 10900 (February 28, 1995). When a 
    company refused to provide the information requested in the form 
    required, or otherwise significantly impeded the Department's 
    proceedings, we assigned that company first-tier BIA, which is the 
    higher of: (1) the highest of the rates found for any firm for the same 
    class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin in the less-
    than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a prior administrative review; 
    or (2) the highest calculated rate found in this review for any firm 
    for the same class or kind of merchandise in the same country of 
    origin.
        When a company has substantially cooperated with our requests for 
    information including, in some cases, verification, but failed to 
    provide complete or accurate information, we assigned that company 
    second-tier BIA, which is the higher of: (1) The highest rate 
    (including the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm for the 
    same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation or 
    a prior administrative review or, if the firm has never before been 
    investigated or reviewed, the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
    investigation; or (2) the highest calculated rate for any firm in this 
    review for the class or kind of merchandise from the same country of 
    origin. See Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 
    (Fed. Cir. 1993).
        We applied second-tier BIA to Rubberflex. While Rubberflex 
    cooperated throughout the administrative review by submitting 
    questionnaire responses and with verification, we found that responses 
    provided by Rubberflex could not be verified and thus resorted to BIA 
    pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. The inaccuracies which render 
    the response unusable for purposes of margin calculations include: 
    Rubberflex failed to reconcile its original questionnaire response with 
    its current financial statements and current trial balance; Rubberflex 
    did not report all PP sales that caused entries during the POR; due to 
    inconsistencies in Rubberflex's date of sale methodology, Rubberflex 
    failed to clarify which sales applied to this review period pursuant to 
    the Department's methodology; Rubberflex provided revised questionnaire 
    responses at verification for home market indirect selling expenses, 
    direct labor expense and packing labor, variable overhead, and cost of 
    goods sold; for these same expenses Rubberflex could not demonstrate 
    how the original response was supported by documentation, nor could it 
    document the difference between the original and revised submission for 
    these items; Rubberflex failed to have all the appropriate 
    documentation required to trace the pre-selected sales to its books and 
    records, and; Rubberflex failed to report a trade-bill financing 
    expense incurred on U.S. sales as an adjustment to U.S. price. 
    Furthermore, it failed to provide original source documentation for its 
    reported managerial labor expenses. The deficiencies are outlined in 
    detail in the public version of the memorandum on Rubberflex's Failed 
    Verification from Holly Kuga to Jeffrey P. Bialos, dated November 26, 
    1996.
        In this case, the BIA rate is the highest calculated rate for any 
    firm in this review for the class or kind of merchandise from the same 
    country of origin. Thus, as a result of our review, we preliminarily 
    determine the dumping margin for Rubberflex to be 29.76 percent.
    
    Foreign Market Value
    
        In order to determine whether the home market was viable during the 
    POR (i.e., whether there were sufficient sales of extruded rubber 
    thread in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating 
    FMV), we compared the volume of each of the respondent's home market 
    sales to the volume of its third country sales, in accordance with 
    section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.48. Based on this 
    comparison, we determined that Heveafil and Rubfil did not have a 
    viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based FMV on third 
    country sales for these companies.
        In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(b), we selected the appropriate 
    third country markets for Heveafil and Rubfil based on the following 
    criteria: Similarity of merchandise sold in the third country to the 
    merchandise exported to the United States, the volume of sales to the 
    third country, and the similarity of market organization between the 
    third country and U.S. markets. Specifically, we chose, as the 
    appropriate third country markets, Italy for Heveafil and Hong Kong for 
    Rubfil.
    
    Cost of Production
    
        Because the Department disregarded third country sales below the 
    COP for both Heveafil and Rubberflex in the original investigation (see 
    Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Extruded Rubber 
    Thread from Malaysia, 57 FR 38465 (August 25, 1992)) in accordance with 
    our standard practice, there were reasonable grounds to believe or 
    suspect that both Heveafil and Rubberflex had made third country sales 
    at prices below their COP in this review (see Notice of Final Results 
    of Antidumping Duty Administrative: Extruded Rubber Thread from 
    Malaysia, 61 FR 54767 (October 22, 1996)). Thus, the Department 
    initiated a COP investigation with respect to Heveafil and Rubberflex. 
    Additionally, upon petitioner's allegation of sales made below the COP 
    by Filati and Rubfil, the Department determined that it had reasonable 
    grounds to believe or suspect that sales by Filati and Rubfil of the 
    foreign product under consideration for the determination of FMV in 
    this review may have been made at prices below the COP as provided by 
    section 773(b) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b) of the 
    Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales by Filati and Rubfil. 
    See COP Initiation Memorandum, dated August 2, 1995.
        In order to determine whether home market or third country prices 
    were above the cost of production (COP), we calculated the COP for each 
    model based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials, labor, 
    other fabrication costs, general expenses, and packing pursuant to 19 
    CFR 353.51(c).
        In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, and longstanding 
    administrative practice (see, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 
    Less Than Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip 
    from Korea, 56 FR 16306 (April 22, 1991) and Final Results of 
    Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Mechanical Transfer Presses 
    from Japan, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994)), if over ninety percent of 
    respondent's sales of a given model were at prices above the cost of 
    production, we did not disregard any below-cost sales because we 
    determined that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial 
    quantities. Where we found between ten and ninety percent of 
    respondent's sales of a given product were at prices below the COP and 
    the below cost sales were made over an extended period of time, we 
    disregarded only the below-cost sales. Where we found that more than 
    ninety percent of
    
    [[Page 6760]]
    
    respondent's sales were at prices below the COP and the sales were made 
    over an extended period of time, we disregarded all sales for that 
    product and calculated FMV based on constructed value (CV), in 
    accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. Based on this test, we 
    disregarded below-cost sales with respect to Heveafil, Filati and 
    Rubfil.
        In accordance with section 773(a)(2) of the Act, we used CV as the 
    basis for foreign market value where there were no usable sales of 
    comparable merchandise in the appropriate home, or third country, 
    markets. We calculated CV for each model based on the sum of 
    respondent's cost of manufacture (COM), plus general expenses, profit 
    and U.S. packing. In accordance with section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Act, 
    for general expenses, which include selling, general and administrative 
    expenses (SG&A), we used the greater of the reported general expenses 
    or the statutory minimum of ten percent of the COM. For profit, we used 
    the greater of the weighted-average home or third country market profit 
    during the POR or the statutory minimum of eight percent of the COM and 
    SG&A.
        Where FMV was based on third country sales, we based FMV on CIF 
    prices to unrelated customers in comparable channels of trade as that 
    of the U.S. customer. Specifically, in accordance with section 
    773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, FMV was based on direct sales from Malaysia 
    for purchase price sales comparisons, and on sales from the inventory 
    of each respondent's branch office for ESP sales comparisons.
        For home or third country market price-to-purchase price 
    comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, for rebates. We 
    also deducted post-sale home or third country market movement charges 
    from FMV under the circumstance of sale provision of section 
    773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56(a). This adjustment included 
    Malaysian foreign inland freight, brokerage, ocean freight, marine 
    insurance, brokerage, and inland freight to unrelated customers, where 
    appropriate. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of 
    sale adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in credit 
    expenses.
        For home or third country market price-to-ESP comparisons, we made 
    deductions for rebates and credit expenses where appropriate. We 
    deducted the home/third country market indirect selling expenses, 
    including inventory carrying costs, pre-sale freight (i.e., foreign 
    inland freight, brokerage, ocean freight, marine insurance, brokerage, 
    and foreign freight to warehouse) and other indirect selling expenses, 
    up to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, 
    in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).
        For all price-to-price comparisons, we deducted home or third 
    country market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, where 
    appropriate, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. In 
    addition, where appropriate, we made adjustments to FMV to account for 
    differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
    accordance with section 773(a)(4)(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.57 and 
    where possible, made comparisons at the same level in accordance with 
    19 CFR 353.58.
        For CV-to-purchase price comparisons, we made circumstance of sale 
    adjustments, where appropriate, for credit expenses in accordance with 
    773(a)(4)(B) and 19 CFR 353.56.
        For CV-to-ESP comparisons, we made deductions, where appropriate, 
    for credit expenses. We also deducted the home market or third country 
    market indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs 
    and other indirect selling expenses, up to the amount of indirect 
    selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
    353.56(b)(2).
        For all CV-to-price comparisons, we added U.S. packing expenses as 
    specified above, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
    
    Currency Conversion
    
        We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a). 
    All currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the 
    Federal Reserve Bank.
    
    Verification
    
        As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we conducted a 
    verification of information provided by Rubberflex by using standard 
    verification procedures including on-site inspection of the 
    manufacturer's facilities, examination of relevant sales and financial 
    records, and selection of original source documentation containing 
    relevant information.
    
    Preliminary Results of Review
    
        As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
    following margins exist for the period October 1, 1993, through 
    September 30, 1994:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Margin  
                       Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heveafil Sdn. Bhd..........................................         0.36
    Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd........................................        29.76
    Rubfil Sdn. Bhd............................................        29.76
    Filati Lastex Elastfibre (Malaysia)........................         0.00
    Rubber Thread..............................................        15.16
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Rubber Thread reported that it made no shipments of the subject        
      merchandise during the period of review. Rubber Thread has not been   
      investigated or reviewed previously.                                  
    
        Interested parties may request a disclosure within 5 days of 
    publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days of 
    the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 
    days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. 
    Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
    publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the briefs, 
    may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. The 
    Department will publish 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.
        The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
    assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
    differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated 
    above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
    the U.S. Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit 
    requirements will be effective for all shipments of extruded rubber 
    thread from Malaysia 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 rates for the reviewed companies will be the 
    rates established in the final results of this review, except if the 
    rate was less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis within the 
    meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, in which case the cash deposit will be zero; 
    (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 conducted by the 
    Department, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate, as 
    set forth below.
    
    [[Page 6761]]
    
        On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in 
    Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) and 
    Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) 
    decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company, 
    it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department 
    has determined that in order to implement this decision, it is 
    appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
    investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
    errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
    antidumping duty orders. Because this proceeding is governed by an 
    antidumping duty order, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of 
    this review will be 15.16 percent, the ``all others'' rate established 
    in the LTFV investigation.
        These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
    effect until publication of the final results of the next 
    administrative review.
        This notice serves as a preliminary 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 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: January 14, 1997.
    Robert S. LaRussa,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 97-3634 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
2/13/1997
Published:
02/13/1997
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
97-3634
Dates:
February 13, 1997.
Pages:
6758-6761 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-557-805
PDF File:
97-3634.pdf