[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20233-20236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11250]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-811]
Steel Wire Rope 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 the petitioner, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Korea. The review
covers 25 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the
United States. The review period is March 1, 1994, through February 28,
1995 (the POR).
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 the administrative review, we will instruct U.S.
Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between
the export price (EP) and the NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a
brief summary of the arguments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O. Barlow, Matthew Rosenbaum,
or Michael Rill, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 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).
[[Page 20234]]
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 7, 1995, the Department published a notice
of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' (60 FR 12540) of
this antidumping duty order for the period March 1, 1994, through
February 28, 1995. On March 27, 1995, the petitioner, the Committee of
Domestic Steel Wire Rope & Specialty Cable Manufacturers, requested an
administrative review for 25 manufacturers/exporters of steel wire rope
from Korea. We published a notice of initiation of the review on April
14, 1995 (60 FR 19017). The Department is now conducting this review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Unlocated Companies
We were unable to obtain addresses for Atlantic & Pacific, Dae
Kyung Metal, Dong-Il Metal, Dong Yong Rope, Korope Co., Kwang Shin
Industrial, Kwangshin Rope, and Seo Hae Industrial. 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-Shippers
Six companies notified us that they did not have shipments of
subject merchandise during the POR, and we confirmed this with the
United States Customs Service. One company, Yeon Sin Metal (Yeon Sin),
did not serve its submission on interested parties, but its submission
was timely submitted to the public file and provided adequate
opportunity for the Department to confirm with the U.S. Customs Service
that Yeon Sin did not ship steel wire rope to the United States during
the POR. Because we were able to confirm that Yeon Sin had no shipments
and its notification of no shipments was reasonably available to
interested parties, we have accepted Yeon Sin's submission and are
treating Yeon Sin as a non-shipper for this review.
Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc. (Sungsan) submitted a letter
stating that it did not produce subject merchandise during the POR and
made only one shipment of subject merchandise produced by another
unrelated company. We sent a letter to Sungsan requesting that it
confirm that the manufacturer of this merchandise was aware that the
merchandise was destined for the United States. Sungsan replied by
confirming that the manufacturer of the subject merchandise which it
shipped during the POR was aware that the shipment was destined for the
United Sates. It also submitted documentation confirming this
assertion. We were able to confirm with the U.S. Customs Service that
Sungsan made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR other
than those supplied by the unrelated manufacturer, as mentioned above.
Accordingly, we are treating Sungsan as a non-shipper for this review.
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. Korea, f.o.b.
customer's specific delivery point, c.i.f., c&f, or delivered 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 Rope and Wire, Ltd. (Manho) and Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope
Co., Ltd. (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 Rope (Kumho), and Ssang Yong Steel Wire
Co., Ltd., because they were unable to demonstrate a connection between
imports for which they paid duties and exports of steel wire rope,
consistent with our practice in the previous review (see Steel Wire
Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 60 FR 63499 (December 11, 1995) (Steel Wire Rope
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 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.
Because the Department disregarded sales below the cost of
production (COP) in the last completed review for Manho and Chun Kee
(see Steel Wire Rope Final), 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
[[Page 20235]]
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 COP 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 because 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, as defined in section 773(b)(2)(D) of the
Act. Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below the
COP, we disregarded all sales of that product, and calculated NV based
on CV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
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 selling, general and administrative (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., Hanboo Rope, Jinyang Wire Rope
Inc., and Seo Jin Rope 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 the facts available because
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) of the Act
authorizes the Department to use 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. Because information from prior segments of the
proceeding constitutes secondary information, 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 for 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
[[Page 20236]]
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
BIA 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.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period March 1, 1994, through February
28, 1995:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic & Pacific......................................... 1.51
Boo Kook Corporation....................................... 1.51
Chun Kee Steel & Wire Rope Co., Ltd........................ 0.01
Chung Woo Rope Co., Ltd.................................... 0.04
Dae Heung Industrial Co.................................... (\1\)
Dae Kyung Metal............................................ 1.51
Dong-Il Metal.............................................. 1.51
Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd....................... 1.51
Dong Young................................................. 1.51
Hanboo Wire Rope, Inc...................................... 1.51
Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc..................................... 1.51
Korea Sangsa Co............................................ (\1\)
Korope Co.................................................. 1.51
Kumho Rope................................................. 0.01
Kwang Shin Ind............................................. 1.51
Kwangshin Rope............................................. 1.51
Manho Rope & Wire, Ltd..................................... 0.00
Myung Jin Co............................................... (\1\)
Seo Hae Ind................................................ 1.51
Seo Jin Rope............................................... 1.51
Ssang Yong Steel Wire Co., Ltd............................. 0.06
Sung Jin................................................... 0.00
Sungsan Special Steel Processing Inc....................... (\1\)
TSK (Korea) Co., Ltd....................................... (\1\)
Yeonsin Metal.............................................. \2\0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments subject to this review. The firm has no individual rate
from any segment of this proceeding.
\2\ 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 180 days from the issuance 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; (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 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
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: April 26, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-11250 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
