[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 107 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29571-29576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13703]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-839]
Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Partial-
Extension Steel Drawer Slides With Rollers From the People's Republic
of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann or Michelle Frederick,
Office of Antidumping Investigations, [[Page 29572]] Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5288 or (202) 482-0186, respectively.
Prelminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that certain partial-extension steel
drawer slides with rollers (drawer slides) from the People's Republic
of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United
States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins are
shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation on November 21, 1994,
(Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Partial-
Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic
of China (PRC), 59 FR 60773 (November 28, 1994) (Initiation of Drawer
Slides from the PRC)), the following events have occurred:
On November 30, 1994, Guangdong Metals and Minerals Import and
Export Group Corporation (GDMC), identified itself as an exporter of
the subject merchandise during the period of investigation (POI).
On December 15, 1994, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its preliminary
determination that there is a reasonable indication that the drawer
slides industry in the United States is threatened with material injury
by reason of imports from the PRC that are alleged to be sold at less
than fair value.
On December 20, 1994, we sent a survey to the PRC's Ministry of
Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) and the China Chamber
of Commerce for Machinery and Electronics Products Importers/Exporters
(the Chamber) requesting the identification of drawer slides producers
and exporters, and information on production and sales of drawer slides
exported to the United States. MOFTEC did not respond to this survey.
We did, however, receive a response to the survey on January 6,
1995, from the Chamber. The Chamber indicated that it could not confirm
whether any PRC company exported the subject merchandise to the United
States during the POI. On December 23, and 30, 1994, we received
letters from Hangzhou Metals, Minerals, Machinery and Chemicals,
Import/Export Corp. and Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation,
respectively. Both of these companies indicated that although they were
named in the petition, they did not produce or export drawer slides
during the POI. On January 3, 1995, two companies, Tai Ming Metal
Products Co., Ltd. (Taiming), and Sikai Hardware & Electronic Equipment
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (SHEEM), which were not named in the petition,
identified themselves as exporters of the subject merchandise to the
United States during the POI.
Based on the foregoing information, on January 19, 1995, the
Department sent full questionnaires including Attachment I (dealing
with claims for Market Oriented Industry (MOI) status) and Attachment
II (dealing with claims for Separate Rates), to MOFTEC and the Chamber.
The Department requested that the questionnaire be transmitted to all
companies that produce drawer slides for export to the United States
and to all companies that exported drawer slides to the United States
during the POI. Although requested, the Department never received
confirmation that either MOFTEC or the Chamber had forwarded the
questionnaire. The Department sent questionnaires to the three
identified respondents (i.e., GDMC, Taiming and SHEEM) on January 19,
1995.
On February 10, 1995, the Department received Section A responses
from GDMC, Taiming and SHEEM. Supplemental information regarding
Section A was provided at the Department's request on March 28, 1995.
On February 10, 1995, Taiming requested that it be allowed to
exclude certain Exporter Sales Price (ESP) transactions of drawer
slides given that these sales constituted a negligible portion of its
sales during the POI. On February 21, 1995, the Department issued a
decision memorandum granting Taiming's request. (See Memorandum to
Barbara R. Stafford from the Team dated February 21, 1995, on file in
Room B-099, U.S. Department of Commerce.)
On March 10, 1995, we received responses to the remaining sections
of our questionnaire from the three respondents. Supplemental
information requested by the Department was received on May 2, 1995.
The petitioner filed comments on all responses submitted by the
respondents on March 2 and 24, and May 8, 1995.
On March 30, 1995, the Department requested the parties to submit
publicly available published information concerning surrogate country
selection and factors of production valuation for drawer slides. The
Department also requested parties to identify those surrogate countries
which produce merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise. On
April 27 and May 4, 1995, the petitioner and respondents submitted the
information and comments on these issues.
Postponement of Final Determination
Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on May 17, 1995, the
respondents requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary
determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final
determination until 135 days after the date of publication of an
affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal Register. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 353.20(b), because our preliminary determination is
affirmative, and no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are
granting respondents' request and postponing the final determination.
Scope of Investigation
The subject merchandise in this investigation is certain partial-
extension steel drawer slides of any length with rollers. A drawer
slide is composed of two separate drawer slide rails. Each rail has
screw holes and an attached polymer roller. The polymer roller may or
may not have ball bearings. The subject drawer slides come in two
models: European or Low-Profile and Over-Under or High-Profile. The
former model has two opposing rails that provide one channel along
which both rollers move and the latter has two opposing rails that
provide two channels, one for each roller. For both models of drawer
slides, the two opposing rails differ slightly in shape depending on
whether the rail is to be affixed to the side of a cabinet or the side
of a drawer. A rail may also feature a flange for affixing to or
aligning along the bottom of a drawer.
Drawer slides may be packaged in an assembly pack with two drawer
slides; that is, four rails with their attached rollers, or in an
assembly pack with one drawer slide; that is, two rails with their
attached rollers; or individually; as a drawer slide rail with its
attached roller. An assembly pack may or may not contain a packet of
screws.
Not included in the scope of this investigation are linear ball
bearing steel drawer slides (with ball bearings in a linear plane
between the steel elements of the slide), roller bearing drawer slides
(with roller bearings in the wheel), metal box drawer slides (slides
built into the side of a metal or aluminum drawer), full extension
drawer slides (with more than four rails per pair), and
[[Page 29573]] industrial slides (customized, high-precision slides
without polymer rollers).
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading
8302.42.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). It may also be classified under 9403.90.80. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation is May 1, 1994, through October 31,
1994.
Applicable Statue 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.
Separate Rates
Each of the responding Chinese companies has requested a separate,
company-specific rate. Taiming and SHEEM are joint ventures which were
established in China in 1990 and 1993, respectively. Taiming is a joint
venture between a Chinese collective (which the respondent claims has
no government ownership), a privately owned Hong Kong Company, and a
privately owned Taiwanese company. The joint venture owns both the
production and export facilities used to manufacture and export the
drawer slides it sells to the United States. SHEEM is a joint venture
between a privately-owned Chinese company (i.e., owned by individuals)
and a Hong Kong company. This joint venture also owns both the
production and export facilities used to manufacture and export the
drawer slides it sells to the United States.
According to GDMC's business license it is ``owned by all the
people''. As stated in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China 59 FR
22585, 22586 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide), and the Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from
the People's Republic of China 60 FR 22545 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl
Alcohol), ownership of a company by all the people does not require the
application of a single rate. Accordingly, each of the three
respondents is eligible for consideration for a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity under a test arising out of the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers) and
amplified in Silicon Carbide. Under the separate rates criteria, the
Department assigns separate rates in nonmarket economy cases only if
respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
governmental control over export activities.
1. Absence of De Jure Control
The respondents in this investigation have submitted a number of
documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control. Taiming and SHEEM
each submitted the ``Law of the People's Republic of China on Chinese-
Foreign Contractual Joint Ventures'' (April 13, 1988). The articles of
this law authorize joint venture companies to make their own
operational and managerial decisions. They also submitted the ``Foreign
Trade Law of the PRC'' (May 12, 1994) which grants autonomy to foreign
trade operators in management decisions and establishes accountability
for their own profits and losses.
GDMC submitted four enactments indicating that the responsibility
for managing enterprises ``owned by all of the people'' is with the
enterprises themselves and not with the government. These are the ``Law
of the People's Republic of China on Industrial Enterprises Owned by
the Whole People,'' adopted on April 13, 1988, (1988 Law) and the
``Regulations for Transformation of Operational Mechanism of State-
Owned Industrial Enterprises,'' approved on August 23, 1992 (1992
Regulations); ``Foreign Trade Law of the PRC'' (May 12, 1994); and the
``Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities,''
approved on December 21, 1992, (Export Provisions). In April 1994, the
State Council enacted the ``Emergent Notice of Changes in Issuing
Authority for Export Licenses Regarding Public Quota Bidding for
Certain Commodities (Quota Measures).
The 1988 Law and 1992 Regulations shifted control of enterprises
owned by all the people from the government to the enterprises
themselves. The 1988 Law provides that enterprises owned ``by the whole
people'' shall make their own management decisions, be responsible for
their own profits and losses, choose their own suppliers, and purchase
their own goods and materials. The 1988 Law also has other provisions
which support a finding that such enterprises have management
independence from the government in making management decisions. The
1992 Regulations provide that these same enterprises can, for example,
set their own prices (Article IX); make their own production decisions
(Article XI); use their own retained foreign exchange (Article XII);
allocate profits (Article II); sell their own products without
government interference (Article X); make their own investment
decisions (Article XIII); dispose of their own assets (Article XV); and
hire and fire their employees without government approval (Article
XVII). The Export Provisions indicate those products that may be
subject to direct government control. Drawer slides do not appear on
the Export Provisions list nor on the Quota Measures list and are not,
therefore, subject to export constraints.
As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence, that the
provisions of the above-cited 1988 Law and 1992 Regulations regarding
enterprise autonomy have not been implemented uniformly among different
sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC (see ``PRC Government Findings
on Enterprise Autonomy,'' in Foreign Broadcast Information Service-
China-93-133 (July 14, 1993)). Therefore, the Department has determined
that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether
respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control
which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.
2. Absence of De Facto Control
The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating
whether each respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or
subject to the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4)
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or
financing of losses (see Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol).
Each respondent has asserted the following: (1) It establishes its
own export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts, without guidance from
any governmental entities or organizations; (3) it makes its own
personnel decisions, and there is no information on the record that
suggests central government control over selection of management; and
(4) it retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according
to its business needs and has the authority to sell its assets and to
[[Page 29574]] obtain loans. In addition, respondents' questionnaire
responses indicate that company-specific pricing during the POI does
not suggest coordination among exporters. This information supports a
preliminary finding that there is a de facto absence of governmental
control of export functions.
Consequently, we preliminarily determine that Taiming, SHEEM, and
GDMC have met the criteria for the application of separate rates. We
will examine this issue at verification and determine whether the
questionnaire responses are supported by verifiable documentation.
Nonmarket Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy country
(NME) in all past antidumping investigations and administrative reviews
(see, e.g., Silicon Carbide and Furfuryl Alcohol). Neither respondents
nor petitioners have challenged such treatment. Therefore, in
accordance with section 771(18)(c) of the Act, we will continue to
treat the PRC as an NME in this investigation.
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base foreign market value (FMV) on
the NME producers' factors of production, valued in a comparable market
economy that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The
sources of individual factor prices are discussed under the FMV
section, below.
Surrogate Country
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the
NME producers' factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or
more market economy countries that (1) are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (2) are
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department has
determined that India, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and
Indonesia are the countries most comparable to the PRC in terms of
overall economic development (see Memorandum from David Mueller,
Director, Office of Policy, to Gary Taverman, Acting Director, Office
of Antidumping Investigations, dated January 25, 1995). According to
the information on the record, we have determined that India is also a
significant producer of products comparable to drawer slides among
these six potential surrogate countries. We found formed metal products
suitable for furniture to be comparable merchandise to drawer slides.
This is a broad category of merchandise which encompasses a variety of
products including drawer slides. Because other products included in
this category undergo similar production process (i.e., cutting,
stamping and forming of metal) as drawer slides, and have similar end
uses (i.e., manufactured for use in home or office furniture) as drawer
slides, we have determined that metal furniture parts constitute
comparable merchandise. Accordingly, we have calculated FMV using
Indian prices for the PRC producers' factors of production. We have
obtained and relied upon published, publicly available information
wherever possible.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of drawer slides from the PRC to the
United States by Taiming, SHEEM, and GDMC were made at less than fair
value, we compared the United States price (USP) to the FMV, as
specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign Market Value''
sections of this notice.
United States Price
For all respondents, we based USP on purchase price, in accordance
with section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was
sold directly by the Chinese exporters to unrelated parties in the
United States prior to importation into the United States and because
ESP methodology was not otherwise indicated. We have included certain
sales characterized by SHEEM as ``trial'' sales because we determined
that they were sold in commercial quantities and at prices that were
not aberrational.
We calculated purchase price based on packed, FOB Hong Kong and CIF
U.S. port prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States, as
appropriate. Where necessary, we made deductions for foreign inland
freight, brokerage and handling, loading and containerization, ocean
freight, and marine insurance. When these services were provided by a
market economy supplier and paid for in a market economy currency, we
used the actual cost. Otherwise, these charges were valued in the
surrogate country.
Foreign Market Value
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated FMV
based on factors of production reported by the factories in the PRC
which produced the drawer slides for the three exporters. To calculate
FMV, the reported factor quantities were multiplied by Indian values
for those inputs purchased domestically from PRC suppliers. Where
possible, we used public information for the surrogate values and
adjusted the input prices to make them delivered prices. For a complete
analysis of surrogate values, see the Calculation Memorandum attached
to the Concurrence Memorandum, dated May 30, 1995. We then added
amounts for overhead, general expenses and profit, and packing expenses
incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed and ready for
shipment to the United States.
To value cold-rolled steel coil (1.2 mm), we used public
information from the 1994 edition of Statistics for Iron & Steel
Industry In India, published by the Steel Authority of India Limited
(SAIL). We used this source instead of a U.S. Embassy report submitted
by the petitioner because (1) it provided prices for steel that most
closely resembled the specifications of the product used by the
respondents and (2) because the data was more contemporaneous with the
POI. We adjusted the factor values from January 1994 to the POI using
wholesale price indices published in International Financial Statistics
(IFS) by the International Monetary Fund and made deductions for
certain domestic taxes to derive a tax-exclusive price.
The respondents, Taiming and SHEEM, argue that we should use the
actual acquisition price of cold-rolled steel imported by the joint
ventures from the Republic of Korea. However, cold-rolled steel imports
from Korea are subject to U.S. antidumping (AD) and countervailing
(CVD) duties orders and therefore the prices are likely to be
unsuitable for use in this context. It is the Department's practice not
to value factors based on data from producers subject to AD or CVD
orders. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the PRC, 58 FR 48833, 48841
(September 20, 1993) (Helical Spring Lock Washers). Similarly, GDMC
argues that the Department should rely on its acquisition price of
Japanese steel imports in calculating FMV because GDMC purchases steel
from Japan in U.S. dollars. However, the relevant transaction for
purposes of constructing a surrogate FMV is the transaction between the
producer and the supplier of the input.
Because GDMC resells the steel to the producer in Chinese RMB, the
Department did not rely on the Japanese acquisition price (e.g., see
Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Coumarin From the
PRC, 59 FR 66895 (December 28, 1994)) (Coumarin). Although the drawer
slides producer uses the Japanese steel exclusively for the manufacture
of drawer slides for GDMC to export, this does not detract from the
central fact that the transaction between GDMC and the producer is in
[[Page 29575]] a non-convertible currency. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium From
the Russian Federation, 60 FR 102 27957 (May 26, 1995). Further GDMC
does not purchase steel exclusively for use in drawer slides
production. Therefore, the price for the large quantities purchased by
GDMC does not necessarily reflect prices for the smaller quantities
purchased by drawer slides producers.
To value epoxy powder, steel rivets, polymer wheels, coloring
powder and nylon powder, we used public information from the August
1994 Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Imports (Indian
Import Statistics). Although certain respondents who subcontract
certain components of drawer slides (e.g., steel rivets and polymer
wheels) argue that the Department should value the factors of
production based upon their subcontractors' experience, we based the
value for these inputs on the price of a completed input. In two past
cases, Helical Spring Lock Washers and Final Determination of Sales
Less Than Fair Value: Disposable Pocket Lighters From the PRC, 60 FR 87
22359 (May 5, 1995), the Department did use the subcontractor's factors
of production in calculating FMV. In those instances, the subcontractor
further processed the subject merchandise into a finished product and
the Department was unable to obtain surrogate information for valuing
this further processing. However, in this investigation, wheels and
rivets are completed sub-components inserted into the respondents'
product and we were able to obtain surrogate information to value these
subcomponents. Furthermore, valuing the cost to the producer of the
subject merchandise for inputs is consistent with the statute's
direction to measure and value ``the factors of production utilized in
the production of the merchandise.'' All inputs that were purchased
were valued on the basis of a surrogate. Therefore, it is appropriate
to base the value for these inputs on the price of a completed product.
This is consistent with our practice in recent investigations (see
Furfuryl Alcohol and Coumarin.)
For degreaser, a material not listed in Indian Import Statistics,
we relied on The Analyst's Import Reference 1993, Chemical &
Pharmaceutical Products (The Analyst), published by Genasys Multimedia
of Bombay, India. We also relied on The Analyst for valuing phosphoric
acid and phosphorous powder because data from the Indian Import
Statistics was based on negligible quantities or a broadly defined
import category. For hydrochloric acid, we relied on a 1993 price quote
used in Coumarin from the PRC because the Indian Import Statistics and
The Analyst are based on an Indian import category that is not
exclusive to hydrochloric acid (see Coumarin). We adjusted these factor
values to the POI using wholesale price indices published by IFS.
To value labor, we used information from the U.S. Department of
Labor's 1992 Foreign Labor Trends which provided Indian labor rates for
skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled workers. To determine the number
of hours in an Indian work week, we used the Country Reports: Human
Rights Practices for 1990. We adjusted the factor value to the POI
using consumer price indices published in the IFS, consistent with our
treatment of this value in past NME cases.
To value factory overhead, including energy, we calculated a
percentage based on industry group income statements for ``Processing
and Manufacture--Metals, Chemicals, and Products thereof'' from the
September 1994 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin (1994 RBI).
For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we derived
a percentage based on 1994 RBI data. The respondents argue that the ten
percent statutory minimum is more appropriate because the RBI data is
inclusive of selling commissions, which are not incurred by most of the
respondents. However, in NME proceedings, the FMV is normally based
completely on factors valued in a surrogate country (with regard to,
for example, actual selling expenses) on the premise that the actual
experience can not be meaningfully considered. Accordingly, we are
applying the surrogate-based SG&A expenses. See, e.g., Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium from
Ukraine 60 FR 16432 (March 30, 1995).
For profit, we relied on the statutory minimum of eight percent
because the calculated rate based on 1994 RBI data was less than eight
percent. We added packing, using Indian values obtained from the August
1994 Indian Import Statistics and Statistics for Iron & Steel Industry
in India. Packing values were inflated to the POI using IFS price
indices.
Best Information Available (BIA)
The following discussion regarding the application of BIA applies
to all exporters other than those that have responded to our
questionnaires. Because no information has been presented to the
Department to prove otherwise, any exporter of subject merchandise that
did not respond to the Department's questionnaires is presumed to be
under government control, and, therefore, is not entitled to its own
separate dumping margin. The evidence on record indicates the
responding companies may not account for all exports of the subject
merchandise. In the absence of responses from all exporters, therefore,
we are basing the PRC-Wide rate on BIA, pursuant to section 776(c) of
the Act (see Silicon Carbide and Manganese Sulfate).
In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology, whereby the Department normally assigns lower
margins to those respondents that cooperated in an investigation and
more adverse margins to those respondents that did not cooperate in an
investigation. When a company refuses to provide the information
requested in the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes the
Department's investigation, it is appropriate for the Department to
assign to that company the higher of (a) the highest margin alleged in
the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any respondent in
the investigation (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and
Parts Thereof from Federal Republic of Germany, 54 FR 18992 (May 3,
1989).
In this investigation, since the evidence indicates that not all
PRC exporters of drawer slides responded to our questionnaire, any PRC
company, other than those specifically identified below, will be
subject to the PRC-Wide rate. In this investigation, that rate is the
highest margin alleged in the petition, as revised by the Department,
because it is higher than the highest calculated rate of any
respondent. (See Initiation of Drawer Slides from the PRC).
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify all
information determined to be acceptable for use in making our final
determination.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, we are directing
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of drawer
slides from the PRC, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or
posting of a bond equal to the estimated dumping margins by which the
FMV [[Page 29576]] exceeds the USP, as shown below. These suspension of
liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufacturer/producer/exporter margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taiming Metal Products Co., Ltd............................. 0.66
Sikai Hardware Electronic Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd... 5.22
Guangdong Metals and Minerals Import and Export Group Corp./
Guangdong Metals and Minerals, Import and Export Group,
Metal Products Trading Company............................. 24.48
PRC-Wide Rate............................................... 55.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRC-Wide rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise
except for entries from exporters that are identified individually
above.
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of
this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material
injury to, the U.S. industry.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration no later than August 23, 1995, and
rebuttal briefs, no later than August 30, 1995. In accordance with 19
CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford
interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in
case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing will be held at 1:00
p.m. on September 6, 1995, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties
should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48
hours before the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room
B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests
should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be
discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will
be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If this investigation
proceeds normally, we will make our final determination within 135 days
after the publication of this preliminary determination.
This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).
Dated: May 30, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-13703 Filed 6-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
