[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 43 (Monday, March 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8253-8255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-601]
Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
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 from Farberware, Inc. (petitioner),
the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea. This notice of
preliminary results covers the period January 1, 1994 through December
31, 1994. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Daelim Trading
Company, Ltd. (Daelim). The review indicates the existence of dumping
margins during this period.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties equal to the
difference between the United States price (USP) and the NV. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties
who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the
argument: (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy S. Wei or Zev Primor, Office of
Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202)482-
5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations of 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).
Background
The Department published an antidumping duty order on certain
stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea on January 20,
1987 (52 FR 2139). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity
To Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for
the 1994 review period on January 12, 1995 (60 FR 2941). On January 30,
1995, petitioner requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain
stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea for one
manufacturer/exporter, covering the period January 1, 1994 through
December 31, 1994. We initiated the review on February 15, 1995 (60 FR
8629).
The Department extended the time limits for the deadlines for the
preliminary and final results of review because of the additional time
required for the development of a new questionnaire that accorded with
the URAA. See Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; Time Limits, 60
FR 56141 (November 7, 1995). As a result of the federal government 28-
day total shutdown, these deadlines were further extended.
The Department is now conducting this administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
In addition, on September 11, 1995, petitioner requested that the
Department conduct an investigation to determine if Daelim made sales
at prices below its cost of production (COP) during the review period.
On October 19, 1995, based on petitioner's allegation and the totality
of evidence on record, the Department determined that there were
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Daelim made sales at
prices below its COP, in accordance with section 773 (b)(2)(A)(i) of
the Act, and initiated a COP investigation for Daelim, pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act. See Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware
from Korea--Home Market Sales Below Cost Allegation for Daelim Trading
Company, Ltd., October 19, 1995.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this administrative review are certain
stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea. During the
review period, such merchandise was classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 7323.93.00. The products covered by
this order are skillets, frying pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double
boilers, stock pots, dutch ovens, casseroles, steamers, and other
stainless steel vessels, all for cooking on stove top burners, except
tea kettles and fish poachers. Excluded from the scope is stainless
steel kitchen ware. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and
Customs' purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to
the scope of product coverage.
The period of review (POR) is January 1, 1994 through December 31,
1994, covering one manufacturer/exporter, Daelim.
Use of Facts Available
A large portion of Daelim's home market sales were to an affiliated
reseller. Because an extremely small percentage of Daelim's total home
market sales were to unaffiliated customers, there is not a sufficient
factual basis to determine whether sales to the affiliated reseller
were made at arm's-length prices. See Television Receivers, Monochrome
and Color, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 52 FR 8940, 8943 (March 20, 1987). Therefore, the Department
will request that Daelim provide the information on sales by its
affiliated reseller to the first unaffiliated customer for certain home
market models.
For purposes of the preliminary results, the Department has applied
a neutral facts available (FA) rate for the missing downstream sales
information, in accordance with section 776(a)(1) of the Act. For a
neutral FA rate, we applied the weighted-average margin calculated for
sales to the United States (U.S.) for which there were appropriate home
market sales for matching
[[Page 8254]]
purposes. If Daelim timely responds to our request for additional
information, we will examine Daelim's response and incorporate the
information provided in our analysis in the final results of
administrative review. If Daelim fails to provide the requested data,
we may evaluate the application of FA accordingly.
United States Price
In calculating USP for Daelim, we used export price, as defined in
section 772(a) of the Act, because the merchandise was sold to
unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to the date of importation. Daelim
reported that export price was based on the packed, FOB price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for
brokerage and handling charges, inland freight from the plant, credit
expense, wharfage, container freight station (CFS) charges, and export
license recommendation fees, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act, because these expenses were incident to bringing the subject
merchandise from the original place of shipment in the exporting
country to the place of delivery in the United States. We increased USP
for duty drawback, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
In addition, because there is a concurrent countervailing duty order on
the subject merchandise, we increased USP by the amount of the
countervailing duty imposed on the subject merchandise to offset the
export subsidy, in accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.
No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
A. Viability
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared Daelim's volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Daelim's
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a
viable basis for calculating NV for Daelim, pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
B. COP Test
As stated above in the Background section, the Department initiated
a cost investigation to determine whether Daelim made home market sales
during the POR at prices below its COP, as defined in section 773(b) of
the Act. We calculated 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, in accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP
information provided by Daelim in its questionnaire responses.
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to
determine whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below
the COP, we examined whether such sales were made in substantial
quantities within an extended period of time, and whether such sales
were made at prices which permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of home market sales of a given model are at prices less than
the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because
the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of home market
sales of a given model are at prices less than the COP, we find that
sales of that model were made within an extended period of time in
``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of
the Act. Moreover, we determine whether the below-cost sales of a given
product are 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. If we find that sales have been made within an
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities'' and were not at
prices which would permit recovery within a reasonable period of time,
we disregard the below-cost sales, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)
of the Act.
The results of our cost test indicated that within an extended
period of time, for certain home market models, more than 20 percent of
the home market sales were sold at below the COP prices, which would
not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of
time. Thus, we excluded these below-cost sales and used the remaining
above-cost sales as the basis of determining NV, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1). For those home market models for which there were no
above-cost sales, we compared export prices to constructed value (CV),
in accordance with section 773(b)(1).
C. Model Match
The Department determined that the model match methodology provided
by Daelim in its questionnaire response was too restrictive. Daelim's
methodology limited the selection of matches to essentially identical
merchandise. When there were no contemporaneous sales of this identical
merchandise, Daelim's methodology did not select acceptable similar
merchandise, but, instead, resorted to CV as the basis for NV.
Therefore, we revised Daelim's model match for the preliminary results
of review in order to search for the HM model which is most like or
most similar in characteristics and uses with each US model, pursuant
to section 771 (10) of the Act. First, from Daelim's one product
category, we established three foreign like product categories: (1)
Sauce pans and pots; (2) frying pans; and (3) other cooking ware, such
as steamers, covers, or boiler inserts. Second, we broadened Daelim's
model match criteria of capacity, gauge, and body style, and did not
use the parameters Daelim suggested. To perform the model match, we
first searched for the most similar home market model with regard to
capacity. If there were several home market models with identical
capacities, we then searched for the most similar home market model
with regard to gauge. We continued this process with regard to body
shape. If, as a result of this analysis, several home market models
were deemed equally similar, we chose the home market model which, when
compared to the U.S. model, had the lowest difference in variable costs
of manufacturing (difmer), provided the difmer did not exceed 20
percent of the total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. model.
Our model match resulted in several price-to-price comparisons
involving sales to the affiliated reseller, requiring downstream sales
information. For those U.S. models where no foreign like product was
found with a difmer of less than 20 percent or where the U.S. model
matched to a home market model which was found to be sold at below
cost, we resorted to CV as the basis of NV, in accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act.
D. Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on Daelim's cost of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the subject merchandise, SG&A and profit incurred and
realized in connection
[[Page 8255]]
with the production and sale of the foreign like product, and U.S.
packing costs. We used the costs of materials, fabrication, and G&A as
reported in the CV portion of Daelim's questionnaire response. We used
the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales portion of
Daelim's questionnaire response. We based selling expenses and profit
on the information reported in the home market sales portion of
Daelim's questionnaire response. See Certain Pasta from Italy; Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination, 61 FR 1344, 1349 (January 19,
1996). For selling expenses, we used the average of above-cost per-unit
HM selling expenses weighted by the total quantity sold. For actual
profit, we first calculated the difference between the home market
sales value and home market COP, and divided the difference by the home
market COP. We then multiplied this percentage by the COP for each U.S.
model to derive an actual profit.
E. Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those price-to-price comparisons where we did not resort to CV
or the facts available, we based NV on the price which the foreign like
product is first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and to
the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the export price,
as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We reduced NV for
home market credit and advertising expenses, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii), due to differences in circumstances of sale. We also
reduced NV by packing costs incurred in the home market, in accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i). In addition, we increased NV for U.S.
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A). We made further
adjustments to account for differences in physical characteristics of
the merchandise, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.57 of the Department's
regulations.
When NV was based on CV or home market sales, we adjusted for
commissions paid on U.S. sales. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1),
we offset these commissions with the weighted average of home market
indirect selling expenses, because no sales commissions were incurred
in the home market, up to the amount of the commissions paid on U.S.
sales. In addition, we increased NV by U.S. credit expenses, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, because of
differences in the circumstances of sale. No other adjustments were
claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daelim Trading Co., Ltd................... 1/1/94-12/31/94 6.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of publication of this notice and any interested party may request a
hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will
be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the
date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final
results of the administrative review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at the
hearing, within 180 days from the issuance of these preliminary
results.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment
of antidumping dumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews
for all shipments of certain stainless steel cooking ware from the
Republic of Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption
on or after the publication date of the final results of these
administrative reviews, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) The cash deposit rate for Daelim will be the rate established in
the final results of administrative review; (2) for merchandise
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in these reviews 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 a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a
firm covered in these reviews, or the original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the
manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these reviews,
or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous reviews, the
cash deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the ``all others'' rate
established in the LTFV investigation (52 FR 2139, January 20, 1987).
This notice serves as a preliminary 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). 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).
Dated: February 28, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-4983 Filed 3-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
