[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 183 (Thursday, September 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48970-48972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23488]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-538-802]
Shop Towels From Bangladesh; 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 shop towels from Bangladesh. The review
covers 6 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the
United States. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1993, through
February 28, 1994.
We have preliminarily determined that one exporter made no
shipments during the POR and that the use of best information available
(BIA) is appropriate for two exporters. We have also preliminarily
determined that sales by the remaining exporters have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). 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 United States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 21 ,1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Rosenbaum, Davina Hashmi or
Michael Rill, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482-4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 20, 1992, the Department published in the Federal Register
(57 FR 9688) the antidumping duty order on shop towels from Bangladesh.
On March 4, 1994, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to
Request an Administrative Review'' (59 FR 10368) of this antidumping
duty order for the period March 1, 1993, through February 28, 1994. On
March 15, 1994, the petitioner, Milliken & Company, requested an
administrative review for six manufacturers/exporters of shop towels
from Bangladesh.
We published a notice of initiation of the review on April 15, 1994
(59 FR 18099). The Department is now conducting this review in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of Review
The product covered by this administrative review is shop towels.
Shop towels are absorbent industrial wiping cloths made from a loosely
woven fabric. The fabric may be either 100 percent cotton or a blend of
materials. Shop towels are currently classifiable under item numbers
6307.10.2005 and 6307.10.2015 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS).
Although HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding
remains dispositive.
United States Price
In calculating USP, the Department used purchase price as defined
in section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold
to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to importation and the exporter's
sales price (ESP) methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.
Purchase price was based on ex-factory, f.o.b., c.i.f., or c&f
prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made
adjustments, where applicable, for ocean freight, insurance, and
forwarding charges in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value
We calculated FMV based on constructed value (CV) in accordance
with section 773(e) of the Act, because none of the respondents sold
such or similar merchandise in the home market or in any third-country
market during the POR. The CV includes the cost of materials and
fabrication of the merchandise exported to the United States, plus
general expenses, profit and packing. To calculate CV we used: (1)
Actual general expenses, or the statutory minimum of 10 percent of
materials and fabrication, whichever was greater; (2) profit, as
calculated by using the statutory minimum of 8 percent of materials,
fabrication costs and general expenses; and (3) packing costs for
[[Page 48971]]
merchandise exported to the United States. Because the only general
expenses incurred were those incurred for U.S. sales, we used these
general expenses in our calculation of CV. We made no adjustments.
Currency Conversion
In our analysis, we normally make currency conversions in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.60 using the exchange rates certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Since the Federal Reserve Bank of New
York does not provide exchange rate information for Bangladesh, we used
the average monthly exchange rates published in the International
Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.
Best Information Available
In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have preliminarily
determined that the use of BIA is appropriate for two companies that
did not submit timely or complete responses to the questionnaire.
Section 776(c) of the Act states that the Department shall use BIA
wherever a company refuses or is unable to produce information in a
timely manner and in the form required, or significantly impedes an
administrative review.
In determining what to use as BIA, section 353.37(b) of the
Department's regulations provides that the Department may take into
account whether a party refuses to provide requested information or
impedes a proceeding. The Department employs a two-tiered methodology
that takes into account the degree of cooperation provided by a
respondent.
In the case of respondents who refuse to provide information
requested in a timely manner, or who otherwise significantly impede the
review, we use 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 less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior administrative reviews;
or (2) the highest calculated rate in the current review for any firm.
When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for
information, but fails to provide all information requested in a timely
manner or in the form requested, we use as BIA the higher of (1) the
highest rate (including the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the
firm for the same class or kind of merchandise from the same country
from either the LTFV investigation or a prior administrative review; or
(2) the highest calculated rate in the current review for any firm for
the class or kind of merchandise from the same country (see Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in
Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al., 58 FR
39729 (July 26, 1993)). See also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United
States, 996 F.2d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Krupp Stahl AG et al v. United
States, 822 F. Supp 789 (CIT May 26, 1993).
In our original questionnaire we stated that companies must report
all entries of purchase price sales of subject merchandise during the
POR. In Khaled Textiles Mills Ltd. (Khaled)'s initial response to our
questionnaire, it indicated that it did not produce shop towels during
the review period and therefore was not interested in participating in
this review. Since Khaled did not indicate in its submission that it
had no shipments during the review period we sent a letter to Khaled in
order to clarify its statement. Khaled responded by indicating that it
did ship shop towels to the United States during the period of review,
from the prior year's production. We then sent Khaled a letter
requiring it to respond completely to our original questionnaire. After
several extensions, Khaled responded to our questionnaire. Khaled
indicated that it had already answered the narrative portion of the
questionnaire in the first administrative review and was only
submitting additional sales data for the second review period. However,
the Department does not accept questionnaire responses submitted in
previous reviews because the Department views each review as a distinct
and separate proceeding. See Barium Chloride from the People's Republic
of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 54 FR 52
(January 3, 1989).
The information that Khaled did submit was highly deficient. Khaled
submitted only the invoice number, bill of lading number and date,
invoice value, terms of sale, freight expenses and weight for each
shipment. Without a narrative response, we do not know if Khaled
included all relevant expenses. In addition, the constructed value
information Khaled submitted could not be used since Khaled calculated
one constructed value for both shop towels and non-subject merchandise,
and it was not calculated on a per-unit basis. Given the deficiencies
of Khaled's response, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we
have determined that the use of BIA is appropriate. Because Khaled
attempted to provide the necessary information to the Department in a
timely manner, we have considered Khaled to be a cooperative
respondent. Accordingly, we have preliminarily assigned Khaled a margin
of 9.61 percent, which is the highest rate ever applicable for Khaled.
In Sonar's initial response to our questionnaire, it indicated that
it was no longer producing shop towels and had temporarily closed its
factory. Sonar further stated that it did not have competent staff to
respond to the questionnaire. Since Sonar did not indicate that it had
no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review, we
sent a letter to Sonar in order to clarify its statement. Sonar
responded by indicating that it did ship subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR. In this letter it provided the commercial
invoice number, the bill of lading number, the invoice value and ocean
freight. We then sent another letter requesting that it respond fully
to the questionnaire. Sonar did not submit a response until four days
after the extended due date. We have returned Sonar's late submission
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(b)(2)(1994). Since Sonar did not
submit a timely response to the questionnaire, in accordance with
section 776(c) of the Act, we have determined that the use of BIA is
appropriate for Sonar, and we have considered Sonar to be an
uncooperative respondent. Accordingly, we have preliminarily assigned
Sonar a margin of 42.31 percent, which is the highest rate in the LTFV
investigation and the highest rate ever found in this proceeding.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period March 1, 1993, through February
28, 1994:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Margin(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Star Mills Ltd................................... \1\42.31
Greyfab (Bangladesh) Ltd............................... 0.00
Hashem International................................... 0.00
Khaled Textile Mills Ltd............................... 9.61
Shabnam Textiles....................................... 1.74
Sonar Cotton Mills (Bangladesh) Ltd.................... 42.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments or sales subject to this review; rate is from LTFV
investigation.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. Upon completion of the review the Department will issue
appraisement
[[Page 48972]]
instructions concerning all respondents directly to the 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 by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be those rates established in the final results of the
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 prior 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 or the
original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 4.60 percent, the
``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (57 FR 3996).
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days
of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held as
early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days after
the date of publication or the first work day 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 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 this
administrative 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 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(c).
Dated: September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23488 Filed 9-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
