Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54825

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–506]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

the People’s Republic of China; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On January 29, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on porcelainon-steel (POS) cooking ware from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC) (62 FR

4250). This review covers shipments by

two manufacturers/exporters of this

merchandise to the United States during

the period December 1, 1993, through

November 30, 1994. We gave interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

our preliminary results. Based upon our

analysis of the comments received (see

Analysis of Comments Received section

below), these final results of review

remain unchanged from the preliminary

results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lorenza Olivas or Kelly Parkhill, Office

of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–2786.

Applicable Statute and Regulations:

Unless otherwise stated, all citations to

the statute and to the Department’s

regulations are references to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 2, 1986, the Department

published, in the Federal Register, the

antidumping duty order on POS cooking

ware from the PRC (51 FR 43414). On

December 6, 1994, the Department

published, in the Federal Register, a

notice of opportunity to request an

administrative review of this

antidumping duty order (59 FR 62710)

covering the period December 1, 1993,

through November 30, 1994.

On December 21, 1994, in accordance

with 19 C.F.R. 353.22(a)(1), a U.S.

importer, CGS International Inc. (CGS),

requested that we conduct an

administrative review of Clover

Enamelware Enterprise Ltd. (Clover), a

PRC manufacturer/exporter of the

subject merchandise, and its thirdcountry reseller in Hong Kong, Lucky

Enamelware Factory Ltd. (Lucky). On

December 29, 1994, in accordance with

19 C.F.R. 353.22(a), petitioner, General

Housewares Corp. (GHC) requested that

we conduct an administrative review of

China National Light Import and Export

Corporation (China Light), Shanghai

Branch, through Amerport (H.K.), Ltd.

We published the notice of initiation of

this antidumping duty administrative

review covering the period December 1,

1993 through November 30, 1994, on

January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3192).

On February 29, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of this

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on POS cooking

ware from the PRC (62 FR 4250). There

was no request for a hearing. The

Department has now completed this

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Related Parties

Clover is two-thirds owned by Lucky

and therefore Lucky holds controlling

interest in Clover. Due to Lucky’s

ownership interest in Clover, and the

fact that the same individual is the

general manager at both companies, we

consider Clover and Lucky (hereafter

Clover/Lucky) to be related pursuant to

section 771(13) of the Act. As such, and

consistent with prior reviews of this

order, we have calculated only one rate

for both of these companies. For a

further discussion of this issue, see

Memorandum from Case Analyst to the

File Regarding Status as Related Parties

dated January 17, 1997, which is a

public document on file in the Central

Records Unit (room B–099 of the

Department of Commerce).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of POS cooking ware,

including tea kettles, which do not have

self-contained electric heating elements.

All of the foregoing are constructed of

steel and are enameled or glazed with

vitreous glasses. The merchandise is

currently classifiable under the HTS

item 7323.94.00. HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Custom

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Best Information Available

In our preliminary results, we

determined, in accordance with sections

776(b) and (c) of the Act, that the use

of best information available (BIA) is

appropriate for China Light and Clover/

Lucky. (See ‘‘Memorandum for Jeffrey P.

Bialos from Barbara E. Tillman

Regarding Use of Best Information

Available’’ dated January 16, 1997,

which is a public document on file in

the Central Records Unit (room B–099 of

the Main Commerce Building).) We

received written comments on the

preliminary results of review. Our

analysis of the comments submitted by

interested parties has not led us to

modify our findings from the

preliminary results.

Section 776(b) of the Act states that

the Department shall use BIA whenever

it is unable to verify the information

submitted. Section 776(c) of the Act

states that the Department shall use BIA

whenever a company refuses or is

unable to produce information in a

timely manner and in the form required,

or significantly impedes an

investigation or review.

In deciding what to use as BIA,

section 353.37(b) of the Department’s

regulations provide that the Department

may take into account whether a party

refuses to provide requested information

or impedes a proceeding. Thus, the

Department determines on a case-bycase basis what is BIA. The Department

uses a two-tiered approach in its choice

of BIA. When a company refuses to

provide the information requested in the

form required or otherwise significantly

impedes the Department’s review (first

tier), the Department will normally

assign to that company the higher of (1)

the highest rate found for any firm in

the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

investigation or a prior administrative

review; or (2) the highest rate found in

the current review for any firm. When

a company has cooperated with the

Department’s request for information

but fails to provide information

requested in a timely manner or in the

form required such that margins for

certain sales cannot be calculated

(second tier), the Department will

normally assign to those sales the higher

of (1) the highest rate applicable to that

company for the same class or kind of

merchandise from any previous review

or the original investigation; or (2) the

highest calculated margin for any

respondent in the current review. 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). This practice has

been upheld in Allied-Signal Aerospace

Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185
54826 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices

1Clover/Lucky suggests the following alternative

methods for some portions of the response that

could not be verified: (1) The verifiers could have

timed the products going through the production

process in order to verify the piece rate tables used

to calculate the workers’ wages; (2) 1995 (post-POR)

time cards could be examined to verify the 1993/

94 labor hours and piece rates reported in the

response; (3) uncoated semi-finished steel blanks,

steel blanks with the initial ground coat, steel

blanks with the cover coat, double-coated steel

blanks and finished goods for selected products

could have been shipped to the United States for

further examination and weighing in order to verify

the reported enamel consumption; and (4) loan

documents identifying ownership of machinery

between Lucky and Clover could be examined, in

conjunction with on-site identification of molds

and equipment by knowledgeable floor supervisors,

in order to verify the depreciation information

included in the response that could not be verified

through the depreciation cards.

(Fed. Cir. 1993), and Krupp Stahl AG et

al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 789

(CIT 1993).

As mentioned above, China Light did

not respond to our questionnaire. As

non-cooperative, first-tier BIA, and in

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, we have applied the highest margin

from the LTFV investigation, prior

administrative reviews, or in this

review, which is 66.65 percent. Further,

China Light was not found eligible for

a separate rate in this review.

Consequently, China Light is part of the

single NME entity in this review, which

has been assigned the PRC country-wide

rate (see, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools,

Finished or Unfinished, With or Without

Handles, from the People’s Republic of

China; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; 61 FR 15218, 15221 (April 5,

1996), and Heavy Forged Hand Tools,

Finished or Unfinished, With or Without

Handles, from the People’s Republic of

China; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review; 61 FR

15269 (October 1, 1996).

Clover/Lucky cooperated with our

requests for information and agreed to

undergo verification. From July 17

through July 29, 1995, the Department

attempted verification of the company’s

questionnaire response at Lucky’s sales

offices in Hong Kong and Clover’s

factory in Shenzhen, PRC. As a result of

these verification efforts with respect to

Clover’s questionnaire response, we

discovered significant discrepancies and

were unable to verify substantial

sections of the questionnaire response,

including statutorily required factors of

production information, such as the

number of labor hours worked and the

per unit quantities consumed of primary

material inputs. These discrepancies are

detailed in the Department’s verification

report concerning Clover, dated January

13, 1997.

As a result, the Department has

determined that the data the company

submitted is unverifiable. Therefore, in

accordance with section 776(b) of the

Act, there is no basis to accept the

integrity of the factors of production

information submitted in the

questionnaire response, constituting a

verification failure. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Melamine Institutional

Dinnerware Products from the People’s

Republic of China, 61 FR 1708 (January

13, 1997). Because the respondent failed

verification, the Department must use

BIA. Since Clover/Lucky was

cooperative, we have applied secondtier BIA. The second-tier BIA rate is the

highest rate applicable to the company

from a previous review or the original

LTFV investigation, which in this case

is 66.65 percent, the rate Clover/Lucky

received in the 1990/91 administrative

review.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received a case

brief from Clover/Lucky (respondent)

and a rebuttal brief from General

Housewares (petitioner).

Comment 1: Clover/Lucky alleges that

the Department’s decision to consider

verification a failure is unwarranted.

According to respondent, the problems

at verification were due to: (1) The

brevity of the verification at Clover’s

factory in the PRC; and (2) the

Department’s failure to explore

alternative methods of verification.1

Clover/Lucky claims that had the

Department spent more time at Clover,

the Department would have been able to

verify much of the allegedly unverified

information. According to Clover/

Lucky, it is the Department’s obligation

to allow itself the time necessary to

verify the responses and find alternative

methods of verification of information,

if needed.

Petitioner argues that Clover/Lucky

provided no evidence demonstrating

that the Department’s verification

procedures to verify Clover/Lucky were

unfair or unreasonable.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. The on-site

verification at Clover’s factory in the

PRC was but one portion of the ten-day

verification of Clover/Lucky’s

questionnaire response. Ten days to

verify a questionnaire response is well

within the normal time period allotted

for such verifications. In addition, as

Clover/Lucky noted in its case brief, the

verification team was willing to, and

did, work overtime to allow the

company the opportunity to

demonstrate the accuracy of the

submitted information. Further, upon

leaving Clover’s factory in the PRC, the

team gave Clover the opportunity to

send any missing supporting

documentation to Lucky’s offices in

Hong Kong, which the team would then

verify at that location. Despite this

opportunity, Clover sent no such

information.

As we stated in Antifriction Bearings

(Other than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof from France, et. al.;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Partial

Termination of Administrative Reviews,

61 FR 66481, 66482 ( December

17,1996), ‘‘It is incumbent on the

respondent to establish the accuracy of

the information it submits during the

time period allotted for verification.’’

This position is supported by the U.S.

Court of International Trade (CIT) which

stated, ‘‘There is no statutory mandate

as to how long the process of

verification must last, . . . . [The

Department] is afforded discretion when

conducting a verification pursuant to 19

U.S.C. 1677e(b).’’ Persico Pizzamiglio,

S.A. v. United States, 18 CIT 229, 307

(1994) (holding that a three-day overseas

verification was reasonable). See also

Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United

States, 10 CIT 399, 406, 636 F. Supp.

961, 967 (1986) (held that the

Department has wide latitude in

determining the time to be spent and the

procedures to be used to conduct

verification).

We also disagree with Clover/Lucky’s

contention that it is the Department’s

obligation to explore alternative

approaches to verifying information. As

petitioner points out in its rebuttal brief,

it is the responsibility of the respondent,

and not of the Department, to create a

sufficient record in the administrative

review. Tatung Co., v. United States, 18

CIT 1137, 1140 (1994). The purpose of

verification is to verify the accuracy of

the response, not to collect information

or recreate the response in order to

address its errors or deficiencies. See

Belmont Industries v. United States, 733

F. Supp. 1507, 1508 (CIT 1990)

(‘‘verification is like an audit, the

purpose of which is to test information

provided by a party for accuracy and

completeness. Normally an audit entails

selective examination rather than testing

of an entire universe’’); see also

Monsanto Co. v. United States, 698 F.

Supp. 275, 281 (CIT 1988) (‘‘verification

is a spot check and is not intended to

be an exhaustive examination of the

respondent’s business’’). To accomplish

this, the Department uses standard

verification methods, and among other

things, examines the source documents

that respondents claim were used to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54827

compile the information contained in

their questionnaire response.

To assist respondents in preparing for

verification, the Department issues an

outline of the verification to

respondents prior to the arrival of the

verifiers. Prior to verification in this

case, the Department sent an outline of

the verification procedures to Clover/

Lucky. The outline identified the

information in the response that the

Department intended to verify and the

types of source documents that would

be examined by the Department when

conducting the verification. The outline

also indicated that it was not

exhaustive, and that the Department

might request relevant additional

material necessary for a complete

verification.

As discussed above, the Department

does not have an unlimited amount of

time in which to conduct a verification.

As characterized by the CIT itself,

verification under these conditions is,

by its very nature, a spot check rather

than a complete audit. As such, it is

crucial that the information reported in

the questionnaire response can be

readily verified if selected for

examination. Given the time limits of

verification, the Department is unable to

await, let alone accept, numerous

clarifications or corrections to responses

at verification, nor can it explore all

conceivable verification methods

suggested by a respondent in the hope

that one of them might conceivably

result in the information being verified

at some indefinite point in the future.

The alternative methods of

verification suggested by Clover/Lucky

would have required significant

amounts of additional time to

undertake. In this case, such time was

no longer available because of the

difficulties encountered in verifying the

information in the response using

standard verification procedures as set

forth in the verification outline that was

sent to Clover/Lucky. For example, with

respect to timing the processing steps on

the factory floor as an alternative

method of verifying labor hours,

respondent noted in its comments that

Clover’s POS cookware production

process is a complicated one. According

to Clover/Lucky, the simplest piece of

enamelware, a plate, involves seven

processes while a teakettle (a covered

cookware item) involves 48 processes.

Some of these processes (e.g.,

enameling) involve considerable time

between steps. Given the need to take

several readings per processing step

being examined in order to calculate a

meaningful average, this method would

require considerable time and effort to

verify even one cookware item, much

less a meaningful sample of the

approximately 45 cookware items under

review. Further, Clover manufactures

over 450 different enamelware items,

only a portion of which are cookware

items sold in the United States.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the

Department would be able to randomly

select a cookware item from the piece

rate table (a table listing the standard

amounts of time required to complete

individual processing steps for each

enamelware item produced by the

company) and find that it is being

produced that day on the shop floor.

In addition, two of the suggested

alternatives, the use of 1995 (post-POR)

source documents to verify 1993/94 data

and the post-verification shipment of

finished and semi-finished cookware

products to the United States for

examination by the Department are

simply not reasonable verification

alternatives. The Department cannot

accept unrelated information from a

future review period to substitute for

source documents from the period

under review. The comparison of 1995

time cards to 1993/94 labor records and

piece rate tables will not result in any

meaningful determination as to the

accuracy of the submitted 1993/94

information. As to the submission of

selected pieces of finished and semifinished cookware to the Department for

examination and weighing, the purpose

of on-site verification is to enable the

Department not only to check certain

factual information but also to be able

to further verify the accuracy of the

submitted information through

questions to, and clarifying statements

from, those individuals that either

prepared the response, are involved in

the manufacture and exportation of the

merchandise under review or are

responsible for maintaining the

company’s books and records. This is

not possible under Clover/Lucky’s

suggested alternative methods of

verification.

Comment 2: Clover/Lucky alleges that

it should not be penalized for failing to

maintain the source documentation

needed to support its reported labor

hours/record retention. Neither the

questionnaire nor the outline

specifically stated that time cards

needed to be retained for verification.

Further, these records are not required

to be kept by local tax authorities.

Department’s Position: Contrary to

respondent’s characterization that its

failure to maintain source

documentation for reported labor hours

was the cause of the failed verification,

in this review, labor hours were among

the many items that Clover/Lucky was

unable to tie to or support with source

documentation.

In addition, we disagree with

respondent’s claim that it should not be

penalized for failing to maintain certain

source documents because the

Department did not specifically identify

these source documents in its

questionnaire or outline. Both the

questionnaire and the verification

outline make it clear that the

information submitted in the response

may be subject to verification. Because

responses submitted in an

administrative review may be subject to

verification, it is incumbent upon a

respondent to retain the source

documentation which it used to prepare

the questionnaire response. The

verification outline further notes that we

will be tying the information reported in

the response to the company’s source

documents that support that

information. The outline provides

examples of the type of documents we

examine and clearly states that we may

require any additional documentation

necessary for a complete verification.

Time cards are among the documents

that support a company’s payroll. That

the Department might request to

examine these time cards can hardly be

considered outside the realm of

possibility in a verification of reported

labor hours. Section 773(c)(3) of the Act,

which enumerates the specific factors of

production that the Department

examines in NME cases, lists as the very

first factor ‘‘hours of labor required’’

(section 773(c)(3)(A)).

The record keeping requirements of

local tax authorities are not germane to

the records that need to be maintained

for verification of the questionnaire

response in an antidumping

administrative review. See Krupp Stahl

A.G. v. United States, 17 CIT 450; 822

F. Supp. 789, 791–92 (1993) (holding

that the fact that a foreign government

did not require retention of business

records did not absolve the respondent

from its obligation or responsibility to

respond to the Department’s

questionnaire response in an

antidumping proceeding. The court

upheld the Department’s use of BIA.)

See also Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, Partial

Termination of Administrative Reviews,

and Revocation in Part of Antidumping

Duty Orders, 60 FR 10900, 10990

(February 28, 1995).

Comment 3: Clover/Lucky claims that

the Department’s conclusion that Clover

was unable to document its per-unit

enamel consumption figure is
54828 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices

unfounded. At verification, the

company explained the sampling

procedure it used to estimate the perunit consumption. By weighing three to

five samples of each model throughout

the various coating and drying

processes, it calculated a per-unit

weighted-average of enamel

consumption. Clover/Lucky contends

that, based on this procedure, the

company prepared the table used to

report per-unit enamel consumption in

its response. As respondent itself states,

because enamel coating is a handdipped process, the difference between

the actual weight of an individual item

may be quite different from the

consumption figure calculated in the

sample. However, since the

consumption figures were derived from

actual figures, respondent claims it was

not necessary for the company to

maintain the underlying source

documents.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. The verification report

does not support Clover/Lucky’s

contention that it was able to document

the per-unit enamel consumption. As

stated by Clover/Lucky itself in its case

brief, the company did not retain any of

the original worksheets or underlying

source documents of the per-unit

enamel consumption after conducting

its sample weighing.

As discussed previously, it is the

responsibility of the respondent, and

not of the Department, to create a

sufficient record in the administrative

review. Tatung Co., v. United States, 18

CIT 1137, 1140 (1994). The purpose of

verification is to verify the accuracy of

the response through examination of

source documentation, not to collect

information or recreate supporting

source documentation that respondent

has failed to maintain. Further, as

discussed previously, we reject Clover’s

suggestion that the Department allow it

to ship, after verification, selected

samples of finished and semi-finished

cookware products to the Department in

order that the Department could further

test the accuracy of the reported figures.

For further information regarding the

Department’s position on this, see

Department’s Position to Comment 1.

Comment 4: Clover/Lucky argues that

it should not be penalized for failing to

report the quantities of water, electricity

and fuel consumed in the production

process because the Department did not

specifically ask the company to report

quantities of indirect materials in its

factors of production questionnaire.

Rather, as stated in Clover/Lucky’s case

brief, the Department only requested

factor inputs for the following: (A)

Direct Materials; (B) Direct Labor; (C)

Factory Overhead; (D) Selling, General

and Administrative Expenses; (E) Other;

and (F) Packing. Therefore, the

Department cannot not fault Clover for

failing to report information that was

not fairly requested, citing Koyo Seiko

Company, Ltd. and Koyo Corporation of

U.S.A. v. The United States, 92 F.3rd

1162, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Clover/

Lucky argues further that since the

Department verified Clover’s total value

of electricity and fuel consumption

against financial statements and

vouchers which contained both

quantities and values of electricity and

fuel consumption, it could just as well

have compiled the total quantities of

energy used.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. Because the prices of

materials and inputs in an NME are not

considered valid for calculation

purposes, the Department requires

respondents to report the amount, rather

than the value, of materials consumed

in the production process. Although the

questionnaire did not specifically

include ‘‘indirect materials’’ or ‘‘energy’’

in the list of factor input categories, it

is clear that such items are covered by

the Department’s questionnaire. The list

of requested information, with respect

to the factors of production, is broad

and all-inclusive—it includes all the

major categories involved in production

as well as a catch-all category (i.e.,

‘‘Other’’). Indirect materials and energy

consumed in the production process

normally fall under Factory Overhead,

the very category Clover/Lucky used

when reporting its expenses for

electricity, water and fuel (rather than

the requested quantities for these same

three items). However, these inputs

could have just as easily been

categorized as Other, or in certain cases,

if applicable, Direct Materials. All three

of these categories were listed by the

Department in its questionnaire.

Therefore, it cannot be construed that

the information asked for at verification

was unfairly requested.

As to whether the Department could

have gathered the information at

verification from financial documents or

invoices, again, respondent is asking the

Department to take on the responsibility

of creating the company’s response at

verification. As discussed previously, it

is the responsibility of the respondent,

and not of the Department, to create a

sufficient record in the administrative

review. Tianjin Machinery I/E Corp. v.

United States, 806 F. Supp. 1008, 1015

(CIT 1992). The Court has held that the

Department ‘‘is not required to . . .

recalculate a respondent’s submission to

develop an accurate response.’’ Tatung

Co., v. United States, 18 CIT at 1142 n.3,

citing Chinsung Indus. Co. v. United

States, 705 F. Supp. 598, 601–02 (1989).

Comment 5: Clover/Lucky contests

the Department’s statement in the

verification report that there was an

extremely large number of typographical

errors in the reported quantities of steel

purchases. Clover/Lucky also claims

that the statements in the verification

report that the company was unable to

reconcile the quantity of steel

requisitioned for production with

inventory withdrawals, and that it was

also unable to substantiate its reported

per unit quantities of steel, are incorrect.

The company claims that much of the

steel information was verified and that

those items that did not verify were not

substantial and would not materially

affect the company’s response.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. At verification, we

found a number of discrepancies with

respect to both steel purchases and steel

consumption. From a small sample of

selected invoices, the Department

discovered typographical errors

resulting in the under reporting of

individual steel purchases in two cases

by 22 and 43 percent, the over reporting

of individual steel purchases by 222

percent in another, and the

misclassification of one purchase’s steel

thickness. Because at verification the

Department is only able to verify

information through spot-checking,

where we find discrepancies in the

subset that is actually tested, we must

judge the effect of such discrepancies

that are randomly revealed on the

unexamined portion of the response.

See, e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof From France, et. al.; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 2081

(January 15, 1997).

Further, Clover/Lucky incorrectly

concludes that the reported net

discrepancy is inconsequential because

it is small when compared to total

reported steel purchases. In fact, the

figure in the verification report was

based on an examination of only a small

portion of the steel purchases (those

with a thickness of 4 mm), not all steel

purchases and includes errors in both

directions. Because at verification we

examined a subset of steel purchases

and found discrepancies in the

reporting with respect to this subset, the

Department must attribute to all of the

steel purchases these same

discrepancies. See Belmont Industries v.

United States, 733 F. Supp. 1507, 1508

(CIT 1990); see also Monsanto Co. v.

United States, 698 F. Supp. 275, 281

(CIT 1988). Therefore, the figure

understates the impact of the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54829

2Certain molds were among the fixed assets

which the Department selected for verification of

depreciation expenses.

discrepancies, even when properly

compared to 4mm steel purchases.

Problems also arose with respect to

the verification of steel consumption.

The Department was unable to verify

the reported ratio for steel scrap, which,

because of its significance in the

manufacture of POS cookware, is an

important factor in determining total

steel consumption. The spot check of

departmental steel requisitions to

inventory withdrawals showed a

discrepancy of approximately seven

percent that the company was unable to

account for.

The Department faced similar

problems in its verification of the per

unit quantities of steel used in the

production of cooking ware that were

reported in the response. The company

submitted theoretical quantities based

on an equation it developed using the

specific density of steel. As to the

statement in the verification report

which noted no discrepancies between

the reported per unit steel amounts and

the method used by the company to

calculate these amounts (cited by

respondent as support for their

conclusion that the problems in this

area were insignificant), the only

conclusion that can be drawn from that

statement is that the company did not

make any mathematical errors in its

calculations, nor any transcription

errors when typing this figure in the

response. As such, the Department’s

statement in its verification report that

it found no discrepancies between the

reported per unit steel amounts and the

method respondent used to calculate

these reported figures has no bearing on

either the accuracy of the method the

company chose to estimate its per unit

steel consumption or the figures in its

response. The fact remains that the

company could not corroborate the

calculated theoretical per unit figures

with sampled actual weight readings or

support the figures used in the per unit

calculations with the measurements

from the technical drawings that the

company claimed as supporting

documentation.

The discrepancies, the errors in

reporting and the inability to reconcile

the figures reported in the response with

supporting documentation, demonstrate

that the company’s response with

respect to, not only its purchases, but

also its consumption of steel, the

primary material input in the POS

production process, cannot be relied

upon.

Comment 6: With respect to

depreciation expenses regarding certain

fixed assets, Clover/Lucky argues it did

not create ‘‘fixed asset cards’’ (instead of

a fixed-asset ledger, Clover records all

its asset-related information on fixed

asset cards) for its equipment at the time

they were installed because the cards

are only required to be created during

the first fiscal year period. Further,

although Clover admits that it had no

system in place to show ownership of

the molds,2 it contends that the

Department could have examined loan

documents to determine the identity of

the fixed assets in question. Moreover,

Clover/Lucky claims that its technicians

know the identity of the asset by merely

looking at it. According to respondent,

the Department could have reviewed the

loan documents and successfully

verified this section of the response if it

had allowed sufficient time for

verification.

Department’s Position: The

Department examined depreciation

expenses in this case because of Clover/

Lucky’s claim that the POS cooking

ware industry constituted a marketoriented industry (MOI). Since the

Department found that the POS cooking

ware industry does not constitute an

MOI (see Department’s position to

Comment 9), the issue raised by

respondent is moot.

Comment 7: Clover/Lucky argues that

even if the Department rejects Clover’s

factors of production information in this

case, it should determine the foreign

market value (FMV) based on Lucky’s

home market (Hong Kong) sales or third

country sales.

Petitioner disputes Clover/Lucky’s

argument, claiming that Clover/Lucky

is, in effect, challenging the

Department’s preliminary finding that

the POS cooking ware industry does not

constitute a market-oriented industry.

Petitioner points out that Clover has

provided no information that prices for

significant inputs are not controlled by

the PRC government. Petitioner argues

that the Department must, therefore,

calculate FMV using the factors of

production methodology.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent that FMV in this case

can be determined on the basis of

Lucky’s home market or third country

sales. In order for FMV to be based on

Lucky’s home market or third country

prices (which respondent, in its case

brief, now requests for the first time in

this proceeding), Lucky would have had

to allege and demonstrate that it had

third-country reseller status. Further, it

would have to meet the requirements of

section 773(f) of the Act in order to have

its sales, either home market or third

country, used as the basis for FMV.

Lucky made no such claim in this

proceeding. Moreover, issues of

relatedness aside, since Clover knows at

the time of the sale the final destination

of the merchandise, Lucky does not

qualify as a reseller from an

intermediate country in any event. (See

Clover/Lucky’s June 20, 1995

Questionnaire Response (Public

Version) which, at page 20, states that

‘‘Clover is aware of the ultimate

destination of the POS cookware

because the destination is indicated on

the outer carton.’’) Moreover, given the

relationship between Lucky and Clover,

we do not consider that there exists a

‘‘purchase’’ from the PRC production

facility by Lucky within the meaning of

section 773(f). (See Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Disposable Pocket Lighters From

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

64191, 64194 (December 13, 1994)).

Thus, even had Lucky made a proper

claim that it was a third country reseller

within the meaning of section 773(f) of

the Act, the record evidence of this case

would not support such a

determination. Therefore, Lucky’s prices

to customers in Hong Kong or third

countries could not be used as the basis

for FMV—only Clover’s factors of

production information could form the

basis of FMV, the method selected by

the Department in this case. Moreover,

had we considered using Lucky’s prices

in Hong Kong or to third countries, we

would normally compare those prices to

the cost of the merchandise based on

factors of production, because the

merchandise was produced in an NME

country. We could not have performed

this test, because we could not verify

the factors of production. As stated

previously, as a result of the failure of

verification with respect to Clover’s

factors of production information, the

Department had to resort to the best

information available in this case under

section 776(b) of the Act.

With respect to petitioner’s rebuttal to

respondent’s claim, petitioner

mistakenly frames respondent’s claim as

one of advocating the use of PRC prices

to determine FMV (i.e., petitioner raises

the market-oriented industry

discussion). Respondent, however, is

not arguing that the Department use

Clover’s price, but, instead, that the

Department use Lucky’s home market or

third country prices to determine FMV.

As respondent itself states on page 19 of

its case brief, ‘‘Lucky and Clover are not

requesting that Commerce use Clover’s

prices.’’

Comment 8: Clover/Lucky argues that

the Department should conduct a

supplemental verification and

reexamine the information submitted in
54830 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices

its questionnaire response. This would

allow the Department sufficient time to

explore the alternative verification

methods enumerated by Clover/Lucky

in its comments.

Petitioner, however, contends that

there is no basis to conduct a reverification, since Clover/Lucky

provided no evidence that Department’s

verification was flawed. Petitioner

points out that the CIT ruled that the

Department ‘‘is not required to re-verify

information submitted after verification,

or recalculate a submission to develop

an accurate response.’’ Tatung Co. v.

United States, 18 CIT at 1142 n.3, citing

Chinsung Indus. Co. v. United States,

705 F. Supp., at 601–02.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. Conducting a second

verification, particularly after a

company fails its first verification,

would be an extraordinary action. To do

so would signal to respondents that a

failed verification can be overcome,

which would undermine both our

ability to obtain complete and accurate

information from Clover/Lucky in time

to conduct proper verifications and to

complete reviews in a timely manner as

required by the Act. As in the case cited

by petitioner, the Department is not

required to conduct a supplemental

verification. The CIT has ruled that

‘‘Due to stringent time deadlines and the

significant limitations on Commerce’s

resources it is vital that accurate

information be provided promptly to

allow the agency sufficient time for

review.’’ Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A.

v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 406, 636

F. Supp, 961, 967 (1986).

Although the Department has

conducted supplemental verifications in

the past (See, e.g., Cyanuric Acid and its

Chlorinated Derivatives from Japan;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 51 FR 45495,

45496 (December 19, 1986); Cell Site

Transceivers from Japan; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 49 FR 43080, 43084 (October

26, 1984); High Power Microwave

Amplifiers and Components Thereof

from Japan, 47 FR 22134 (May 21, 1982)

(final determination of sales at less than

fair value), and; Fireplace Mesh Panels

from Taiwan; Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 47 FR

15393, 15395 (April 9, 1982)), in each of

these cases, re-verification was

conducted pursuant to requests for

additional information requested by the

Department, or due to a particular

emergency that arose in the case. In

contrast, Lucky/Clover’s request is

based primarily on general time

constraints, constraints which must

always be imposed on a verification.

There is simply no reason for the

Department to take the extraordinary

measure in this case of conducting a

supplemental verification.

Comment 9: Clover/Lucky also argues

that the Department should conduct a

supplemental verification to

redetermine that the POS cookware

industry constitutes a market-oriented

industry. Respondent claims that, at

verification, the Department could

verify that the company pays market

prices for both labor and the PRCsourced direct and indirect materials it

uses in the production of cooking ware.

Department’s Position: We disagree

with respondent. As discussed above, in

determining whether an industry under

examination constitutes a marketoriented industry, the Department

examines the industry as a whole, not

just the practices of the company or

companies under investigation or

review. (See Notice of Final

Determination of Less Than Fair Value;

Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 (May 8,

1995).) Clover/Lucky has not

demonstrated that the POS cooking

ware industry constitutes a marketoriented industry in the PRC, and we

have adopted our preliminary

determination with respect to this issue

for these final results. The examination

of Clover’s purchases from its nonmarket suppliers and the wages it pays

its employees is insufficient to conclude

that the POS cooking ware industry as

a whole is a market-oriented industry.

For a more detailed discussion of the

Department’s preliminary determination

that the POS cooking ware industry

does not constitute a market-oriented

industry, see Memorandum to Barbara

E. Tillman, Director of the Office of

CVD/AD Enforcement VI, dated January

17, 1997, ‘‘Market-Oriented Industry

Request in the 1993–1994

Administrative Review of POS Cooking

Ware from the People’s Republic of

China,’’which is a public document on

file in the Central Records Unit (room

B–099 of the Main Commerce Building).

Final Results of Review

Based on our analysis of comments

from interested parties, we determine

that no changes to the preliminary

results are warranted for purposes of

these final results. The dumping

margins for each company under review

are:

Manufacturer/Exporter Rate(percent)

Clover/Lucky ........................... 66.65

PRC-Wide Rate (including

China Light) ......................... 66.65

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States price and FMV may vary

from the percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Since the final results for the more

recent review period, December 1, 1994

through November 30, 1995 (1995

review period) were published on June

17, 1997 (62 FR 3275), the cash deposit

instructions contained in that notice

will apply to all shipments to the

United States of subject merchandise

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after June 17,

1997. The dumping margins established

for the period December 1, 1993 through

November 30, 1994 period will have no

effect on the cash deposit rate for any

firm except for the company China

Light. For China Light, which did not

respond to our questionnaire, and was

not subject to the 1995 review, the cash

deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate

for the 1993–1994 period.

These deposit rates shall remain in

effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

Notification to Interested Parties

This notice also serves as a final

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 reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely

written notification of the return/

destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is

hereby requested. Failure to comply

with the regulations and the terms of an

APO is a sanctionable violation.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54831

Dated: October 16, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–27990 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–806]

Steel Wire Rope From Mexico:

Extension of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limits for preliminary results of

antidumping administrative review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leah Schwartz or G. Leon McNeill,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3782 or (202) 482–

4236, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

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.

Extension of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results

The Department of Commerce has

received a request to conduct an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Steel Wire

Rope from Mexico. On May 21, 1997,

the Department initiated this

administrative review covering the

period March 1, 1996 through February

28, 1997.

Because of the complexity of certain

issues in this case, it is not practicable

to complete this review within the time

limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A)

of the Act. See Memorandum from

Joseph A. Spetrini to Robert S. LaRussa,

Extension of Time Limit for the

Administrative Review of Steel Wire

Rope from Mexico, dated October 16,

1997. Therefore, in accordance with that

section, the Department is extending the

time limits for the preliminary results to

March 1, 1998, and for the final results

to 120 days after the publication of the

preliminary results. These extensions of

time limits are in accordance with

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Dated: October 16, 1997.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD

Enforcement III.

[FR Doc. 97–27992 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

University of Virginia, et al.; Notice of

Consolidated Decision on Applications

for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific

Instruments

This is a decision consolidated

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301). Related records can be viewed

between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in

Room 4211, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Comments: None received. Decision:

Approved. No instrument of equivalent

scientific value to the foreign

instruments described below, for such

purposes as each is intended to be used,

is being manufactured in the United

States.

Docket Number: 97–034. Applicant:

University of Virginia, Charlottesville,

VA 22908. Instrument: Ultrascope,

Model MKII. Manufacturer: Optech

International Ltd., New Zealand.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR

40334, July 28, 1997. Reasons: The

foreign instrument provides videoenhanced imaging for teaching gross

anatomy and tissue dissection for

medical students. Advice received from:

National Institutes of Health, September

2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–052. Applicant:

Albert Einstein College of Medicine,

Bronx, NY 10461–1602. Instrument: Ion

Source Kit for Mass Spectrometer,

Model ES002. Manufacturer: The

Protein Analysis Company, Denmark.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR

40334, July 28, 1997. Reasons: The

foreign instrument provides low flow

(nanoliters per minute) electrospray

ionization for analysis of biopolymeric

samples. Advice received from: National

Institutes of Health, September 2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–056. Applicant:

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT

05405–0084. Instrument: Roentgen

Stereophotogrammetric Analysis

System. Manufacturer: RSA BioMedical

Innovations AB, Sweden. Intended Use:

See notice at 62 FR 41361, August 1,

1997. Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides three-dimensional

measurements of the kinematics of

skeletal or implant movements using

radiographs of small implanted

tantalum beads as markers during

repeated examinations of body joints.

Advice received from: National

Institutes of Health, September 2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–059. Applicant:

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

06269–2092. Instrument: Interfacial

Rheometer, Model CIR–100.

Manufacturer: Camtel, Ltd., United

Kingdom. Intended Use: See notice at 62

FR 42236, August 6, 1997. Reasons: The

foreign instrument provides information

on interfacial film strength,

concentration and interactions,

molecular unfolding and competition

between molecules for interfacial space.

Advice received from: National

Institutes of Health, September 2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–060. Applicant:

The Pennsylvania State University,

University Park, PA 16802. Instrument:

NMR Spectrometer, Model Avance

DRX–600. Manufacturer: Bruker

Instruments, Inc., Switzerland. Intended

Use: See notice at 62 FR 43710, August

15, 1997. Reasons: The foreign

instrument provides a 600-MHz magnet

with sample temperature stability to

0.01°C for study of solvation of

macromolecules. Advice received from:

National Institutes of Health, September

2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–061. Applicant:

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

Woods Hole, MA 02543. Instrument: IR

Mass Spectrometer, Model DELTAplus.

Manufacturer: Finnigan, Germany.

Intended Use: See notice at 62 FR

42237, August 6, 1997. Reasons: The

foreign instrument provides a magnetic

sector mass analyzer with a precision of

1 ppt. Advice received from: National

Institutes of Health, September 2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–062. Applicant:

Clemson University, Clemson, SC

29634–0905. Instrument: Knee Joint

Simulator. Manufacturer: UCL Ltd.,

United Kingdom. Intended Use: See

notice at 62 FR 43710, August 15, 1997.

Reasons: The foreign instrument

provides pneumatic control of simulator

and meniscal knee design testing.

Advice received from: National

Institutes of Health, September 2, 1997.

Docket Number: 97–067. Applicant:

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

08544–0033. Instrument: EPR

Spectrometer, Model E580 FT/CW.

Manufacturer: Bruker Instruments,

Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 62

FR 43710, August 15, 1997. Reasons:

The foreign instrument provides