96-17278. Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 35724-35726]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-17278]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    [A-583-810]
    
    
    Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of 
    Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Review and Termination in Part.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of 
    Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
    antidumping duty order on chromeplated lug nuts from Taiwan. The review 
    covers 19 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
    United States for the period September 1, 1994, through August 31, 
    1995. The review indicates the existence of margins for all firms.
        We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
    normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
    final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
    to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between export 
    price and the NV.
        Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
    results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with each 
    argument (1) and statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
    argument.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1996.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, 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) 482-4195 or 482-3814, 
    respectively.
    
    Applicable Statute and Regulations
    
        Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
    references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
    date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
    Uruguay Round 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 regulations published in 
    the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping 
    duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). The 
    Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
    Administrative Review'' on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 47349). The 
    petitioner, Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated), 
    requested that we conduct an administrative review for the period 
    September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1995. A respondent, Chuen Chao 
    Enterprise Company LTD (Chuen Chao) requested an administrative review 
    of its sales. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and 
    Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 12, 1995 (60 FR 
    53164), and sent questionnaires to the following firms: Anmax 
    Industrial Co., Ltd. (Anmax), Buxton International Corporation 
    (Buxton), Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co. (Chu Fong), Everspring Plastic 
    Corp. (Everspring), Gingen Metal Corp. (Gingen), Goldwinate Associates, 
    Inc. (Goldwinate), Gourmet Equipment Corporation (Gourmet), Hwen Hsin 
    Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Hwen), Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Kwan 
    How), Kwan Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd (Kwan Ta), Kuang Hong Industries, 
    Ltd. (Kuang), Multigrand Industries Inc. (Multigrand), San Chien 
    Electric Industrial Works, Ltd. (San Chien), San Shing Hardware Works 
    Co., Ltd. (San Shing), Transcend International Co. (Transcend), Trade 
    Union International Inc./Top Line (Top Line), Uniauto, Inc. (Uniauto), 
    Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company, Inc (Wing) and Chuen Chao. 
    On December 11, 1995, Chuen Chao withdrew its request for 
    administrative review. Since Chuen Chao was the only party which 
    requested a review of its sales, we are terminating the review of Chuen 
    Chao and its entries will be liquidated at the rate at which they were 
    entered. Gourmet responded to the questionnaire. Buxton and Uniauto are 
    related parties and so responded to the questionnaire as one 
    respondent.
        Questionnaires that were sent to Chu Fong, Kwan How, Kwan Ta, 
    Everspring, Gingen, Goldwinate, Multigrand and Kuang were returned as 
    undeliverable. These firms will receive the ``all others''
    
    [[Page 35725]]
    
    rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 6.93 
    percent.
        The Department has now conducted the administrative review in 
    accordance with section 751 of the Act.
    
    Scope of the Review
    
        On April 19, 1994, the Department issued its Final Scope 
    Clarifications on Chrome-Plated lug Nuts from Taiwan and the PRC. The 
    scope, as clarified, is described in the subsequent paragraph. All lug 
    nuts covered by this review conform to the April 19, 1994 scope 
    clarification.
        Imports covered by this review are shipments of one-piece and two-
    piece chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, more than 11/16 
    inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal (hex) 
    size of at lease 3/4 inches (19.05 millimeters) but not more than on 
    inch (25.4 mm), plus or minus 1/16 of an inch (1.59 mm). The term 
    ``unfinished'' refers to unplated and/or unassembled chrome-plated lug 
    nuts. The subject merchandise is used for securing wheels to cars, 
    vans, trucks, utility vehicles, and trailers. Zinc-plated lug nuts, 
    finished or unfinished, and stainless-steel capped lug nuts are not in 
    the scope of this review. Chrome-plated lock nuts are also not in the 
    scope of the review.
        During the period of review (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were 
    classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading 
    7318.16.00.00. Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience 
    and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
    review is dispositive.
    
    Use of Facts Otherwise Available
    
        We preliminarily determine that in accordance with section 776(d) 
    of the Act, the use of facts available is appropriate for Anmax, Hwen, 
    San Chien, San Shing, Transcend, Top Line, and Wing because these firms 
    did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. The 
    Department finds that, in not responding to the questionnaire, these 
    firms failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to 
    comply with requests for information from the Department. Because 
    necessary information is not available on the record with regard to 
    sales by these firms as a result of their withholding the requested 
    information, we must make our preliminary determination based on facts 
    otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
        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) authorizes the 
    Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of the 
    respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) 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. The 
    statute also provides that the facts otherwise available may be based 
    on secondary information. Because information from prior proceedings 
    constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) provides that the 
    Department shall, to the extend 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.
        To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
    extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
    information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
    such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
    sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
    administrative determinations. 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 appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut 
    Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Review (60 FR 49567), where the Department disregarded 
    the highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was 
    based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
    in an unusually high margin). No such circumstances exist in this case 
    which would cause the Department to disregard a prior margin. In this 
    case, we have used the highest rate from any prior segment of the 
    proceeding. 10.67 percent. This rate was calculated in the Amendment to 
    the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (56 FR 47737), 
    covering the period May 1, 1990 through October 31, 1990.
        The Department also sent questionnaires to Gourmet and Buxton/
    Uniauto which provided us with responses to our questionnaires. 
    However, while planning for verification of these two firms, the 
    Department received submissions from each firm stating that a 
    verification would produce the same results as in previous reviews 
    where the Department was unable to reconcile the data Gourmet and 
    Buxton/Uniauto submitted in their responses to our questionnaire with 
    their audited financial statements (see Buxton/Uniauto and Gourmet 
    submissions dated March 28, 1996, and May 1, 1996, respectively). 
    Reliance on the accounting system used for the preparation of the 
    audited financial statements is a key and vital part of the 
    Department's determination that a company's sales and constructed value 
    data are credible. Section 776(a)(2)(D) states that the Department 
    ``shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available 
    in reaching the applicable determination under this title'' if an 
    interested party or any other person provides information but the 
    information can not be verified. Because their submissions were 
    unreconcilable to their audited financial statements and thus 
    unverifiable, we have determined to apply facts available to Gourmet 
    and Buxton/Uniauto. However, because these firms cooperated with our 
    request for information, we are not using an adverse inference in 
    selecting from among the facts otherwise available. In this case, we 
    have used Gourmet's and Buxton/Uniauto's highest rates from a prior 
    review which are 6.47 percent and 6.93 percent respectively.
    
    Preliminary Results of Review
    
        As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
    following margins exist for the period September 1, 1994, through 
    August 31, 1995:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Percent
                         Manufacturer/Exporter                       margin 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation........................      6.47
    Buxton International/Uniauto..................................      6.93
    Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co.................................      6.93
    Transcend International.......................................     10.67
    San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd...............................     10.67
    Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd.....................................     10.67
    Everspring Plastic Corp.......................................      6.93
    Gingen Metal Corp.............................................      6.93
    Goldwinate Associates, Inc....................................      6.93
    Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd................................     10.67
    
    [[Page 35726]]
    
                                                                            
    Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd.................................      6.93
    Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd..................................      6.93
    Kuang Hong Industries Ltd.....................................      6.93
    Multigrand Industries Inc.....................................      6.93
    San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd.............................     10.67
    Trade Union International Inc./Top Line.......................     10.67
    Uiauto, Inc...................................................      6.93
    Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company....................     10.67
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
        Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
    the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
    353.22(c)(6). Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days 
    of the date of publication (19 CFR 353.38(b)). Any hearing, if 
    requested, will be held 44 days after publication of this notice, or 
    the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs 
    within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice (19 CFR 
    353.38(c)). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, 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 publish 
    the final results of review, including the results of its analysis of 
    issues raised in any such written comments.
        The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
    assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
    differences between export price and NV may vary from the percentage 
    stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue 
    appraisement instructions on each manufacturer/exporter directly to the 
    U.S. Customs Service.
        Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
    for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn 
    from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
    final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
    751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
    firms will be those firms' rates established in the final results of 
    this administrative review; (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 previous 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 6.93 
    percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
        These 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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
    353.22.
    
        Dated: July 1, 1996.
    Robert S. LaRussa,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 96-17278 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/8/1996
Published:
07/08/1996
Department:
Commerce Department
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part.
Document Number:
96-17278
Dates:
July 8, 1996.
Pages:
35724-35726 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-583-810
PDF File:
96-17278.pdf