[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13721]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 7, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-834, A-549-810]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Disposable Pocket
Lighters From the People's Republic of China and Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vincent Kane (202) 482-2815 for the People's Republic of China (PRC);
or David Boyland (202) 482-0588 for Thailand, Office of Countervailing
Investigations, Important Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230.
INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS:
The Petition
On May 9, 1994, we received a petition in proper form filed by the
BIC Corporation (``petitioner''), the sole U.S. Producer of disposable
pocket lighters. Petitioner filed supplements to the petition on May 23
and 24, 1994.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.12, petitioner alleges that imports
of disposable pocket lighters from the PRC and Thailand are being, or
are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value
within the meaning of section 731 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), and that such imports are materially injuring, or
threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioner states that it has standing to file the petition because
the BIC Corporation is an interested party, as defined under section
771(9)(C) of the Act, and it is the sole domestic producer of
disposable pocket lighters. If any interested party, as described under
paragraphs (C), (D), (E), or (F) of section 771(9) of the Act, wishes
to register support for, or opposition to, this petition, it should
file a written notification with the assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Scope of Investigations
The Products covered by these investigations are disposable pocket
lighters, whether or not liquefied hydrocarbon, or a mixture containing
any of these, whose vapor pressure at 75 degrees fahrenheit (24 degrees
celsius) exceeds a gage pressure of 15 pounds per square inch. Non-
refillable pocket lighters are imported under subheading 9613.10.0000
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').
Refillable, disposable pocket lighters would be imported under
subheading 9613.20.0000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and Customs purposes, our written descriptions of the
scope of these proceedings are dispositive.
United States Price and Foreign Market Value--The People's Republic of
China
Petitioner based United States Price (``USP'') on a 1994 sale made
on a packed, c.i.f., duty-paid, delivered basis to a U.S. purchaser of
disposable pocket lighters from the PRC. Petitioner deducted ocean
freight, marine insurance, commission, harbor maintenance fee, and
customs processing fee from this price to arrive at an f.o.b. value for
the imports.
Petitioner contends that the foreign market value (``FMV'') of
disposable pocket lighters subject to this investigation must be
determined in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which concerns
non-market economy (``MNE'') countries. The Department has determined
the PRC to be an NME, within the meaning of section 771(18)(A) of the
Act, in previous cases (see e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sebacic Acid from the PRC, May 31, 1994 (59 FR
28053)). In accordance with 771(18)(C) of the Act, that determination
continues to apply for purposes of this initiation.
In the course of this investigation, parties will have the
opportunity to address this NME determination and provide relevant
information and argument on this issue. In addition, parties will have
the opportunity in this investigation to submit comments on whether FMV
should be based on prices or costs in the PRC consistent with section
773(c)(1)(B) of the Act (see Amendment to Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order:
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the People's Republic of China, 57 FR 15052
(April 24, 1992)).
In this case, petitioner provided two alternative approaches for
determining FMV. In the first approach, in accordance with section
773(c) of the Act, petitioner attempted to base FMV on the NME
producers' factors of production valued in a market economy country at
a comparable level of economic development. Petitioner, however, was
unable to obtain information on the factors of production in the PRC.
Therefore, petitioner used its own factors of production.
In valuing the factors or production, petitioner used India and
Pakistan as surrogate countries. For purposes of this invitation, we
have accepted India and Pakistan as surrogates because their economies
are at a level of development comparable to the PRC's. (See Memorandum
to David L. Binder, Director-Division II, Office of Antidumping
Investigations from David P. Mueller, Director, Office of Policy, dated
August 1993, regarding non-market economy status and surrogate country
selection, on file in Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.) Also,
there is evidence on the record that India is a producer of comparable
merchandise, as required by section 773(c)(4) of the Act. When cost
information was not available in either of these countries, petitioner
valued the factor using its own costs.
In accordance with section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, petitioner's
FMV consisted of the sum of values assigned to materials, labor,
energy, and overhead. Petitioner adjusted certain factor values for
inflation. Pursuant to section 773(e)(1) of the Act, petitioner added
to the labor and material costs, and general expenses, the statutory
minimum of eight percent for profit.
In making its allegation of sales at less than fair value based on
the factors of production methodology, petitioner relied extensively on
U.S. costs for valuing the factors. Although the Department has
accepted similar allegations in past antidumping investigations against
the PRC, we prefer that the NME producers' factors be used and that
they be valued in a comparable market economy, which is a significant
producer of the merchandise. In response to our concern in this regard,
petitioner provided a secondary basis for determining FMV, using prices
from a market economy country.
Section 773(c)(2) of the Act provides that FMV may be based on the
price at which comparable merchandise produced in a market economy
country is sold in other countries, including the United States. In
accordance with section 773(c)(2) of the Act, petitioner provided
information on the price at which disposable pocket lighters from the
Philippines are being sold for export to the United States. For
purposes of this initiation, we have accepted the Philippines as a
surrogate country, because its economy is at a level of development
comparable to the PRC's. (See memoradnum to David L. Binder, Director-
Division II, Office of Antidumping Investigations from David P.
Mueller, Director, Office of Policy, dated December 4, 1991, regarding
non market economy status and surrogate country selection, on file in
Room B-099 of the Department of Commerce.) There is also evidence on
the record that the Philippines is a producer of comparable
merchandise, as required by section 773(c)(4) of the Act. Because the
Philippine import price was on an f.o.b. basis, petitioner made no
adjustments to this price.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that disposable pocket lighters from the PRC are being, or are
likely to be, sold at less than fair value. The comparison of USP and
FMV in the petition indicates a margin of 332.43 percent when FMV is
based on factor values and a margin of 197.85 percent when FMV is based
on Philippine export prices. It it becomes necessary at a later date to
consider the petition as a source of best information available (BIA),
we may review these calculation bases.
Thailand
Petitioner was unable to obtain actual sales price information on
which to base USP. Petitioner, therefore, based USP on the customs
value of imports from Thailand, as reported in the Department of
Commerce IM-146 import statistics. No adjustments were made to these
prices, because they were reported on an f.o.b. basis.
Petitioner also was unable to obtain actual prices for sales in
Thailand or for export to third countries. Accordingly, petitioner
based FMV on its own costs, adjusted for known differences between the
costs of petitioner and Thai producers.
Fair Value Comparison
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to
believe that disposable pocket lighters from Thailand are being, or are
likely to be, sold at less than fair value. Furthermore, the comparison
of USP and FMV in the petition indicates a margin of 172.78 percent. If
it becomes necessary at a later date to consider the petition as a
source of BIA, we may review these calculation bases.
Initiation of Investigations
We have examined the petition on disposable pocket lighters and
have found that it meets the requirements of section 732(b) of the Act.
Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to
determine whether imports of disposable pocket lighters from the PRC
and Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States
at less than fair value.
ITC Notification
Section 732(d) of the Act requires us to notify the ITC of these
actions, and we have done so.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will determine by June 23, 1994, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of disposable pocket lighters from
the PRC and Thailand are causing material injury, or threaten to cause
material injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination will
result in the investigations being terminated; otherwise, these
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time
limits.
This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 353.13(b).
Dated: May 31, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-13721 Filed 6-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
