[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44837-44839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21432]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-810]
Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; 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 by a petitioner, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The
review covers 21 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to
the United States for the period September 1, 1993, through August 31,
1994. The review indicates the existence of margins for the firms.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). 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 United States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department
[[Page 44838]]
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-4195 or 482-3814, respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). 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.
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 2, 1994 (59 FR 45664). The
petitioner, Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated),
requested that we conduct an administrative review for the period
September 1, 1993, through August 31, 1994. We published a notice of
``Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review'' on October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51939), and sent questionnaires to
the following firms: Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd. (Anmax), Buxton
International Corporation (Buxton), Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co.,
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) and Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company,
Inc. (Wing). Only Gourmet and Buxton responded to the questionnaire.
A review was also initiated on Chu Fong Metallic Industrial
Corporation. However, an address could not be determined for Chu Fong
Metallic Industrial Corporation. Questionnaires that were sent to Wing,
Hwen, Kwan How, Kwan Ta, and Kuang Hong were returned as undeliverable.
These firms will receive the ``all others'' rate established in the
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.
The Department has now conducted the administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Scope of the Review
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 least \3/4\ inches (19.05 millimeters) but not more than one
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 this review.
During the period of review (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading
7318.16.00.10. Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience
and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
review is dispositive.
Use of Best Information Available (BIA)
The Department sent questionnaires to, but received no responses
from the following firms: Anmax, Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co.,
Everspring, Gingen, Goldwinate, Multigrand, San Chien, San Shing,
Transcend, Top Line, and Uniauto. Accordingly, for these companies we
applied the first-tier BIA rate of 10.67 percent, which is the highest
rate the Department found in the original LTFV investigation.
The Department also sent questionnaires to Gourmet and Buxton who
provided us with responses to our questionnaires. However, the
Department was unable to reconcile the data Gourmet and Buxton
submitted in their responses to our questionnaire with their audited
financial statements (see verification reports for Buxton and Gourmet,
July 21, 1995). 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. Internal documents which have not
been audited and are not used for the preparation of the financial
statements or for any purpose other than internal deliberations of the
company does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in
the documents (see Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products and Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea,
58 FR 37186 (July 9, 1993)). Because their submissions were
unreconcilable to their audited financial statements and thus
unverifiable, we have determined to apply BIA to Gourmet and Buxton.
Because these firms cooperated with our request for information, we
applied the second-tier BIA rate of 6.47 percent to Gourmet and 6.93
percent to Buxton. These rates represent the highest rates ever
applicable to each firm.
In deciding what to use as BIA, the Department's regulations
provide that the Department may take into account whether a party
refuses to provide requested information (19 CFR 353.37(b)). Thus, the
Department determines, on a case-by-case basis, what constitutes BIA.
For the purposes of these preliminary results, we applied the following
two-tier BIA analysis where we were unable to use a company's response
for purposes of determining a dumping margin (see Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Antifriction Bearings and
Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58 FR 39739, July 26, 1993):
1. When a company refuses to cooperate with the Department or
otherwise significantly impedes these proceedings, we used as BIA
the higher of (1) the highest of the rates found for any firm for
the same class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin
in the original LTFV or prior administrative reviews; or (2) the
highest rate found in this review for any firm for the same class or
kind of merchandise in the same country of origin.
2. When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for
information and, substantially cooperates in verification, but fails
to provide the information requested in a timely manner or in the
form required or was unable to substantiate it, we used as BIA the
higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to the firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation
or a prior administrative review, or if the firm has never before
been investigated or reviewed, the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for
the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country
of origin.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period September 1, 1993, through
August 31, 1994:
[[Page 44839]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation....................... 6.47
Buxton International......................................... 6.93
Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co................................ 10.67
Transcend International...................................... 10.67
Kuang Hong Industrial Works.................................. 10.67
San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd.............................. 10.67
Everspring Corporation....................................... 10.67
Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd.................................... 10.67
Everspring Plastic Corp...................................... 10.67
Gingen Metal Corp............................................ 10.67
Goldwinate Associates, Inc................................... 10.67
Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd............................... 6.93
Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd................................ 6.93
Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd................................. 6.93
Kuang Hong Industries Ltd.................................... 6.93
Multigrand Industries Inc.................................... 10.67
San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd............................ 10.67
Trade Union International Inc./Top Line...................... 10.67
Uniauto, Inc................................................. 10.67
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company................... 6.93
Chu Fong Metallic Industrial Corporation..................... 6.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. 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)(1) 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.
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the
date of publication of this notice, and a hearing within 10 days of the
date of publication. Any hearing requested will be held as early as
convenient for parties but not later than 44 days after date of
publication, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs, or other
written comments, from interested parties may be submitted not later
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttal comments, 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.
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 notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to parties
subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable
violation.
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: August 4, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-21432 Filed 8-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
