[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66691-66697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28571]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-803]


Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without 
Handles, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results and 
Preliminary Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Recission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Notice of Intent Not To 
Revoke in Part of Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With 
or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') has 
preliminarily determined that sales by the respondents in these reviews 
covering the period February 1, 1999 through January 31, 2000, have 
been made below normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are 
adopted in our final results of reviews, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service (``Customs'') to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries.
    The Department invites interested parties to comment on these 
preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Thomson or Howard Smith, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International

[[Page 66692]]

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4793, and 482-5193, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, (``the Act'') are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are 
to the current regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

Period of Review

    The period of review (``POR'') is February 1, 1999 through January 
31, 2000.

Background

    On February 19, 1991, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (56 FR 6622) the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand 
tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (``certain heavy 
forged hand tools'' or ``HFHTs''), from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''). On February 14, 2000, the Department published in the 
Federal Register (65 FR 7348) a notice of opportunity to request 
administrative reviews of these antidumping duty orders. On February 
28, 2000, four exporters of the subject merchandise requested that the 
Department conduct administrative reviews of their exports of the 
subject merchandise. Specifically, Tianjin Machinery Import & Export 
Corporation (``TMC'') requested that the Department conduct 
administrative reviews of its exports of HFHTs within the axes/adzes, 
bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks classes or kinds of 
merchandise. Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation (``Shandong 
Huarong'') requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of its exports of HFHTs within the bars/wedges class or kind of 
merchandise. Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation (``LMC'') 
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its 
exports of HFHTs within the bars/wedges class or kind of merchandise. 
Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation (``SMC'') requested that 
the Department conduct administrative reviews of its exports of HFHTs 
within the axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks 
classes or kinds of merchandise.
    In addition, on February 29, 2000, the petitioner, O. Ames Co., 
requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of exports 
within all four classes of subject merchandise by TMC, Fujian Machinery 
& Equipment Import & Export Corp. (``FMEC''), Shandong Huarong, LMC, 
and SMC. The Department published a notice of initiation of these 
reviews on March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16875).
    The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Partial Recission

    In its June 12, 2000, Section A questionnaire response, Shandong 
Huarong stated that during the POR, it sold only subject merchandise 
within the bars/wedges and axes/adzes classes or kinds of merchandise. 
Therefore, Shandong Huarong requested that it be excluded from the 
review of the hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks classes or kinds of 
merchandise. Based on our review of U.S. import data obtained from 
Customs indicating no shipments of hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks, 
we are preliminarily rescinding our review of Shandong Huarong with 
respect to sales within these classes or kinds of merchandise.
    Furthermore, in its June 12, 2000, Section A questionnaire 
response, LMC noted that during the POR it sold only HFHTs within the 
bars/wedges class or kind of merchandise. Based upon our review of U.S. 
import data obtained from Customs indicating no shipments of axes/
adzes, hammers/sledges and picks/mattocks, we are preliminarily 
rescinding our review of LMC with respect to sales within these classes 
or kinds of merchandise.

Scope of Reviews

    Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of HFHTs from the 
PRC comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) 
hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/
sledges); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges 
(bars/wedges); (3) picks/mattocks; and (4) axes/adzes.
    HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, 
picks, and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may 
not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles; 
assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging 
bars and tampers; and steel wood splitting wedges. HFHTs are 
manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to 
required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final 
shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product 
shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may 
include shot-blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the 
insertion of handles for handled products. HFHTs are currently 
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') 
subheadings: 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. 
Specifically excluded are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg (3.33 
pounds) in weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in 
length and under. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of these orders is dispositive.

Intent Not To Revoke

    In their February 28, 2000 requests for review, TMC, Shandong 
Huarong, and LMC submitted timely requests that the Department revoke 
the order on certain classes or kinds of HFHTs with respect to their 
sales of this merchandise. Specifically, TMC requested that we revoke 
the orders with respect to its sales of hammers/sledges and picks/
mattocks, Shandong Huarong requested that we revoke the order with 
respect to its sales of bars/wedges, and LMC requested that we revoke 
the order with respect to its sales of bars/wedges.
    Section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations notes that 
the Secretary may revoke an antidumping order in part if the Secretary 
concludes, inter alia, that one or more exporters or producers covered 
by the order have sold the merchandise at not less than NV for a period 
of at least three consecutive years. Thus, in determining whether a 
requesting party is entitled to a revocation inquiry, the Department 
must determine that the party received zero or de minimis margins for 
three years forming the basis for the request. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and 
Strip From the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 (January 6, 2000). See also 
the preamble of the Department's latest revision of the revocation 
regulation stating: ``The threshold requirement for revocation 
continues to be that respondent not sell at less than normal value for 
at least three consecutive years . . .'' The respondents provided 
certifications pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(e) indicating that they based 
their revocation requests on the results of the instant reviews and the 
preceding two administrative reviews. However, with

[[Page 66693]]

respect to the classes or kinds of merchandise for which they requested 
revocation, none of these respondents received zero or de minimis 
margins in each of the reviews upon which they based their revocation 
request. See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic 
of China; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 65 FR 50499 (August 18, 2000). Consequently, we preliminarily 
find that TMC, Shandong Huarong and LMC do not qualify for partial 
revocation of the orders based upon section 351.222(b) of the 
Department's regulations.

Verification

    Following the publication of these preliminary results, we intend 
to verify, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, sales and cost 
information submitted by respondents, as appropriate. At that 
verification, we will use standard verification procedures, including 
on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities, the examination of 
relevant sales and financial records, and the selection of original 
source documentation containing relevant information. We plan to 
prepare verification reports outlining our verification results and 
place these reports on file in the Central Records Unit, room B099 of 
the main Commerce building (``CRU-Public File'').

Duty Absorption

    On February 29, 2000, petitioner requested that the Department 
conduct a duty absorption inquiry in order to determine whether 
antidumping duties had been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter 
subject to the order. However, the Department's invitation for such 
requests only applies to certain administrative reviews of orders that 
were in effect before January 1995. For transition orders as defined in 
section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act, i.e., orders in effect as of January 
1, 1995, section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's antidumping 
regulations provides that the Department will make a duty-absorption 
determination, if requested, for any administrative review initiated in 
1996 or 1998. This approach ensures that interested parties will have 
the opportunity to request a duty-absorption determination prior to the 
time for sunset review of the order under section 751(c) on entries for 
which the second and fourth years following an order have already 
passed. Because the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the PRC have 
been in effect since 1991, they are ``transition orders'' in accordance 
with section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Tariff Act. However, since this 
administrative review was not initiated in 1996 or 1998, the Department 
will not make a duty absorption determination.

Separate Rates Determination

    To establish whether a company operating in a non-market economy 
(``NME'') is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate 
rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test 
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by the Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's 
Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). 
Under this test, NMEs are entitled to separate, company-specific 
margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control, 
both in law and in fact, with respect to export activities. Evidence 
supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of 
government control over export activities includes: (1) An absence of 
restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's 
business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence 
of government control over exports is based on four factors: (1) 
Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independent of the 
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) 
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes 
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing 
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and 
sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has 
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See 
Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587 and Sparklers 56 FR at 20589.
    In the final results of the 1998-1999 reviews of HFHTs, the 
Department granted separate rates to Shandong Huarong, SMC, LMC, and 
TMC. See Notice of Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Reviews: Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's 
Republic of China, 65 FR 43290 (July 13, 2000) (``Hand Tools''). While 
these four companies received separate rates in previous segments of 
these proceedings, it is the Department's policy to evaluate separate 
rates questionnaire responses each time a respondent makes a separate 
rates claim, regardless of any separate rate the respondent received in 
the past. See Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China, 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 12441 (March 13, 1998). In the instant reviews, these 
companies submitted complete responses to the separate rates section of 
the Department's questionnaire. The evidence submitted in these reviews 
by Shandong Huarong, SMC, LMC, and TMC includes government laws and 
regulations on corporate ownership, business licences, and narrative 
information regarding the companies' operations and selection of 
management. This evidence is consistent with the Department's findings 
in previous reviews and supports a finding that control of companies in 
the PRC has been decentralized and that the respondent companies' 
operations are, in fact, autonomous from the PRC government. We 
therefore preliminarily determine that these companies continue to be 
entitled to separate rates.
    With respect to FMEC, since it has not provided any information on 
the record in this review, we preliminarily determine that FMEC did not 
establish its entitlement to a separate rate.

Facts Available

(1) Separate Rates Facts Available

    In the instant review, SMC, FMEC, and Shandong Huarong failed to 
provide certain information requested by the Department. SMC failed to 
provide sales and factor of production information regarding its sales 
of axes/adzes, bars/wedges and picks/mattocks. FMEC failed to respond 
to the Department's questionnaire at all. Shandong Huarong failed to 
provide sales and factor of production information regarding its sales 
of axes/adzes. In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, the 
Department has determined that the use of adverse facts available is 
appropriate for purposes of determining the preliminary dumping margins 
for the classes or kinds of subject merchandise for which SMC and 
Shandong Huarong failed to provide information.
    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that:

    if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds 
information that has been requested by the administering authority 
or the Commission under this title; (B) fails to provide such 
information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) 
and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under 
this title; or (D) provides such information

[[Page 66694]]

but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 
782(i), the administering authority and the Commission shall, 
subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title.

    Moreover, section 776(b) of the Act provides that:

    if the administering authority or the Commission (as the case 
may be) finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the administering authority or the Commission, the 
administering authority or the Commission (as the case may be), in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title, may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available.

    Consistent with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, where SMC (axes/
adzes, bars/wedges and picks/mattocks) and Shandong Huarong (axes/
adzes) failed to provide requested information, we based the 
preliminary margins on facts available. In the instant case, SMC chose 
not to provide certain information requested by the Department.\1\ 
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act is not applicable for SMC because it did 
not notify the Department that it could not respond and did not suggest 
an alternative form by which to respond. Section 782(e) of the Act is 
not applicable because no information was ever provided. Therefore, we 
have determined for SMC for axes/adzes, bars/wedges and picks/mattocks 
that use of the facts available is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ SMC noted in its supplemental questionnaire response that it 
has chosen to participate in this review only with respect to sales 
of hammers/sledges and that it understands that its sales of subject 
merchandise other than hammers/sledges will be subject to the 
Department's use of facts available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the instant case, Shandong Huarong did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaire regarding axes/adzes. In its June 12, 2000 
questionnaire response, Shandong Huarong stated that it did not have 
access to the required information to participate in the review on 
axes/adzes. We informed Shandong Huarong, in our August 31, 2000 
supplemental questionnaire, that if it did not report its sales of 
axes/adzes, then these sales would be subject to the facts available 
for purposes of determining a dumping margin for the preliminary 
results. In its September 18, 2000 supplemental response, Shandong 
Huarong claimed that its supplier factory refused to provide the 
information on axes/adzes. See Shandong Huarong's September 18, 2000 
questionnaire response at page 1. Section 782(c)(1) of the Act is not 
applicable for Shandong Huarong because it did not suggest an 
alternative form by which to respond. Regarding Shandong Huarong's 
supplier, because factors data for Shandong Huarong's U.S. sales were 
not provided by its supplier with regard to axes/adzes, we 
preliminarily determine that such party did not demonstrate that it 
cooperated to the best of its ability. See Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of 
China; Preliminary Results of 1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission of Review, and Notice of Intent To Revoke Order in Part, 65 
FR 41944, 41946-41947 (July 7, 2000). Section 782(e) of the Act is not 
applicable because no information was ever provided. Therefore, we have 
determined for Shandong Huarong's sales of axes/adzes that use of the 
facts available is appropriate. We intend to issue further supplemental 
requests for information regarding the factory's refusal to provide 
information on axes/adzes after the preliminary results.
    Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we have determined that SMC 
and the supplier of Shandong Huarong have failed to cooperate to the 
best of their ability with respect to the classes or kinds of 
merchandise discussed above. Accordingly, we have used an adverse 
inference in selecting facts available separate rate margin for the 
classes or kinds of merchandise for which SMC and Shandong Huarong 
failed to provide information and have not cooperated to the best of 
their ability. As outlined in section 776(b) of the Act, adverse facts 
available may include reliance on information derived from: (1) The 
petition; (2) a final determination in the investigation; (3) any 
previous review under section 751 of the Act or determination under 
section 753 of the Act; or (4) any other information placed on the 
record. Specifically, we based SMC's preliminary margin for bars/
wedges, axes/adzes, and picks/mattocks, and Shandong Huarong's 
preliminary margin for axes/adzes on the highest margin for each 
respective class or kind of merchandise from this or any prior segment 
of this proceeding-- 1998-1999 POR: axes/adzes (70.15 percent), bars/
wedges (139.31 percent), picks/mattocks (98.77 percent) and 1999-2000 
POR: hammers/sledges (72.04 percent). See Ferro Union v. United States 
44 F. Supp. 2 1310 (CIT 1999) (``Ferro Union''). With respect to FMEC, 
we preliminarily determine that FMEC is not entitled to a separate rate 
and will be subject to the PRC country-wide rates, which are based on 
adverse facts available. See Separate Rates Determination above; and 
Country-Wide Rates Facts Available below.

(2) Country-Wide Rates Facts Available

    The Department has determined that the use of facts available is 
appropriate for purposes of establishing the country-wide rate for 
these preliminary results of reviews, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) 
of the Act. The Act provides that the administering authority shall use 
facts otherwise available when an interested party ``fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested.'' On June 1, 2000, the Department 
sent a questionnaire to the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic 
Cooperation (``MOFTEC'') in order to collect information relevant to 
the calculation of the PRC-wide rate. MOFTEC did not respond to our 
questionnaire.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use adverse 
facts available whenever it finds that an interested party has failed 
to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with 
the Department's requests for information. Because MOFTEC did not 
respond to our questionnaire or direct us to send the questionnaire to 
any other party, and because FMEC failed to respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that these entities did not 
act to the best of their ability to comply with our requests. 
Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, we are relying on 
adverse facts available to determine the margins for the PRC-wide 
entity. When applicable, for adverse facts available for the PRC-wide 
rates we have applied the PRC-wide rates as follows--1998-1999 POR: 
axes/adzes (70.15 percent), bars/wedges (139.31 percent), picks/
mattocks (98.77 percent) and 1999-2000 POR: hammers/sledges (72.04 
percent)--because they are the highest rates from any segment of these 
proceedings with respect to each class or kind of merchandise.

Corroboration

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and relies on ``secondary 
information,'' the Department shall, to the extent practicable, 
corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the 
Department's disposal. The Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') 
(H.R. Doc. 103-316 (2nd Sess. 1994) states that ``corroborate'' means 
to determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 
870. To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent

[[Page 66695]]

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. See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Italy; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 36551, 36552 
(July 11, 1996). With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, 
however, the Department will consider information reasonably at its 
disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. 
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. For example, in Fresh 
Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the 
highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the 
predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another 
company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually 
high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has 
been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 
1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has 
been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are 
present here. Accordingly, for each class or kind of HFHTs for which we 
have resorted to adverse facts available, we have used the highest 
margin from this or any prior segment of the proceeding as the margin 
for these preliminary results because there is no evidence on the 
record indicating that such margins are not appropriate as adverse 
facts available.

Classification of U.S. Sales as Export Price (``EP'') vs. 
Constructed Export Price (``CEP'')

    For respondents SMC, LMC, and Shandong Huarong, we calculated an EP 
for sales to the United States because the first sale was made before 
the date of importation and the use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. 
Sales classification (EP vs. CEP) is an issue that requires further 
analysis for one respondent, TMC, because its affiliate in the United 
States, CMC T.M., performs some selling functions in the United States 
for TMC's sales. Specifically, CMC T.M. finds new U.S. customers, 
transmits purchase orders from U.S. customers to TMC, receives and 
processes warranty claims, and provides technical service. However, the 
sales documentation on the record in these reviews indicates that the 
material terms of TMC's U.S. sales were established in the PRC between 
TMC and the unaffiliated U.S. purchaser. Specifically, we have found 
the following facts from analyzing TMC's questionnaire responses: (1) 
First contact with a U.S. customer may be made either by TMC or CMC 
T.M., (2) all contracts are signed by TMC in the PRC, (3) TMC arranges 
for shipping and other services in the PRC, (4) TMC issues the invoice 
directly from the PRC to the U.S. customer, (5) title passes from TMC 
to the U.S. customer upon shipment from the PRC, and (6) TMC accepts 
payment from the U.S. customer. Given these facts, we preliminarily 
determine that these sales were made in the PRC by TMC and, thus, 
should be treated as EP transactions.

Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated an EP for sales to the United States for all respondents 
because the first sale was made before the date of importation and the 
use of CEP was not otherwise warranted. When appropriate, we made 
deductions from the selling price to unaffiliated parties for ocean 
freight, marine insurance and foreign inland freight. Each of these 
services, with one exception, was either provided by a NME vendor or 
paid for using a NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction for these 
movement charges on surrogate values. See Normal Value section of this 
notice. The one exception referred to above concerns ocean freight. 
Each respondent reported that a market economy vendor provided ocean 
freight for a portion of their U.S. sales and that they paid for this 
service using a market economy currency. Therefore, for all sales, we 
applied the reported market economy ocean freight expense in 
calculating EP.
    We valued marine insurance using the rate in effect in India which 
was reported in the public version of the questionnaire response placed 
on the record in Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Final Results of 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 48184 (September 9, 1998) (``India Wire 
Rod''). We valued foreign brokerage and handling using the rate 
reported in the questionnaire response in India Wire Rod. The sources 
used to value foreign inland freight are identified below in the Normal 
Value section of this notice.
    To account for inflation or deflation between the time period that 
the freight, brokerage, and insurance rates were in effect and the POR, 
we adjusted the rates using the wholesale price indices (``WPI'') for 
India as published in the International Monetary Fund's (``IMF'') 
publication, International Financial Statistics. See Memorandum From 
Frank Thomson Regarding Surrogate Values Used for the Preliminary 
Results of the Ninth Administrative Reviews of Certain Heavy Forged 
Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China, (October 31, 2000), 
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum''), which is on file in the CRU-Public 
File.

Normal Value

    For exports from NMEs, section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that 
the Department shall determine NV using a factors of production 
(``FOP'') methodology if (1) the subject merchandise is exported from 
an NME country, and (2) available information does not permit the 
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or 
constructed value. Section 351.408 of the Department's regulations sets 
forth the Department's methodology for calculating the NV of 
merchandise from NME countries. In every case conducted by the 
Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME. Since 
none of the parties to these proceedings contested such treatment in 
these reviews, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act and section 351.408 of the Department's regulations.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act, the FOP utilized 
in producing HFHTs include, but are not limited to: (A) Hours of labor 
required; (B) quantities of raw materials employed; (C) amounts of 
energy and other utilities consumed; and (D) representative capital 
costs, including depreciation. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of 
the Act, the Department valued the FOP, to the extent possible, using 
the costs of the FOP in a market economy that is (A) at a level of 
economic development comparable to the PRC, and (B) a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise. We determined that India is 
comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita gross national product, 
the growth rate in per capita income, and the national distribution of 
labor. Furthermore, India is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise. See Memorandum From

[[Page 66696]]

Jeff May, Director, Office of Policy, to Thomas Futtner, Acting Office 
Director, AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, dated August 31, 2000, which is 
on file in the CRU-Public File.
    In accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, for purposes of 
calculating NV, we attempted to value FOP using surrogate values that 
were in effect during the POR. However, this data was not available. 
Therefore, we utilized surrogate values that were in effect during 
periods prior to the POR, and adjusted the values, as appropriate, to 
account for inflation or deflation between the effective period and the 
POR. We calculated the inflation or deflation adjustments for all 
factor values, except labor, using the wholesale price indices for 
India that were reported in the IMF's publication, International 
Financial Statistics. We valued the FOP as follows:
    (1) We valued direct materials used to produce HFHTs (i.e., steel, 
steel scrap, paint, wood handles, resin glue, fibreglass handles and 
anti-rust oil) and the steel scrap generated from the production of 
HFHTs (except as noted below) using the rupee per metric ton or rupee 
per kilogram value of imports that entered India during the period 
February 1998 through January 1999 as published in the Monthly 
Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--Imports (``Indian 
Import Statistics''). We valued steel for SMC using the company's 
average reported purchase price because it purchased steel from a 
market economy vendor using a market economy currency. For wood 
handles, resin glue and fibreglass handles, we used the rupee per 
metric ton or rupee per kilogram value of imports that entered India 
during the period February 1998 through July 1998 as published in the 
Indian Import Statistics. 
    (2) We valued labor using a regression-based wage rate, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). This rate is identified on the 
Import Administration's web site (See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/).
    (3) We derived ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and 
administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit using information 
reported for 1992-1993 in the January 1997 Reserve Bank of India 
Bulletin. From this information, we were able to calculate factory 
overhead as a percentage of direct materials, labor, and energy 
expenses; SG&A expenses as a percentage of the total cost of 
manufacturing; and profit as a percentage of the sum of the total cost 
of manufacturing and SG&A expenses.
    (4) We valued packing materials, including cartons, pallets, iron 
straps, anti-damp paper, anti-rust paper, plastic strips, iron knots, 
plastic bags, iron wire, and metal clips, using the rupee per metric 
ton or rupee per kilogram value of imports that entered India during 
the period February 1998 through January 1999 as published in Indian 
Import Statistics. We valued hessian cloth (a packing material) using 
the rupee per kilogram value of imports that entered India during the 
period April 1998 through January 1999 as published in Indian Import 
Statistics.
    (5) We valued coal using the price of steam coal in India in 1996 
as reported in the International Energy Agency's publication, Energy 
Prices and Taxes, Second Quarter 1999 (``EPT'').
    (6) We valued electricity using the 1997 Indian electricity prices 
for industrial use as reported in EPT.
    (7) We used the following sources to value truck and rail freight 
services incurred to transport direct materials, packing materials, and 
coal from the suppliers of the inputs to the factories producing HFHTs:
    Truck Freight: If a respondent used its own trucks to transport 
material or subject merchandise, we valued freight services using the 
average cost of operating a truck, which we calculated from information 
published in The Times of India on April 24, 1994. If a respondent did 
not use its own trucks or the respondent did not state that it used its 
own trucks, we valued freight services using the rates reported in an 
August 1993 cable from the U.S. Embassy in India to the Department. See 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical 
Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China, 58 FR 48833 
(September 20, 1993).
    Rail Freight: We valued rail freight services using the April 1995 
rates published by the Indian Railway Conference Association. These 
rates were used in Brake Drums and Brake Rotors. For further discussion 
of the surrogate values used in these reviews, see Surrogate Value 
Memorandum, dated October 31, 2000, which is on file in the CRU-Public 
File.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

    As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period February 1, 1999 through January 
31, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Margin
                  Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shandong Huarong General Group Corporation:
     Axes/Adzes.........................................           70.15
     Bars/Wedges........................................            0.44
 Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation:
     Bars/Wedges........................................            0.01
 Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation:
     Axes/Adzes.........................................           31.11
     Bars/Wedges........................................            0.84
     Picks/Mattocks.....................................            3.48
     Hammers/Sledges....................................           72.04
 Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation:
     Axes/Adzes.........................................           70.15
     Bars/Wedges........................................          139.31
     Picks/Mattocks.....................................           98.77
     Hammers/Sledges....................................            2.84
 PRC-wide rates:
     Axes/Adzes.........................................           70.15
     Bars/Wedges........................................          139.31
     Picks/Mattocks.....................................           98.77
     Hammers/Sledges....................................           72.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the 
calculations performed in reaching the preliminary results within ten 
days of the date of announcement of these preliminary results. An 
interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of 
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). We will issue a 
memorandum detailing the dates of a hearing, if any, and deadlines for 
submission of case briefs/written comments and rebuttal briefs or 
rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs 
or comments, after verification. Parties who submit arguments are 
requested to submit with the argument (1) A statement of the issue, (2) 
a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. 
Further, the Department requests that parties submitting written 
comments provide the Department with a diskette containing the public 
version of those comments. The Department will issue the final results 
of these administrative reviews, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in interested party comments, within 120 days 
of publication of these preliminary results.
    The final results of these reviews shall be the basis for the 
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by 
these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties.

Duty Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), we

[[Page 66697]]

have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates 
based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins 
calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those 
same sales. In order to estimate the entered value, we subtracted 
international movement expenses from the gross sales value. For those 
respondents or classes or kinds of merchandise with margins based on 
facts available, we based the importer-specific assessment rates on the 
facts available margin percentages. These importer-specific rates will 
be assessed uniformly on all entries of each importer that were made 
during the POR. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.106 (c)(2), we will 
instruct Customs to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any 
entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis, i.e., less than 
0.5 percent. The Department will issue appraisement instructions 
directly to Customs.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for 
all shipments of HFHTs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this 
notice, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above which have 
separate rates (Shandong Huarong, LMC, SMC and TMC) will be the rates 
for those firms established in the final results of these 
administrative reviews for the classes or kinds of merchandise listed 
above; (2) for any previously reviewed PRC or non-PRC exporter with a 
separate rate not covered in these reviews, the cash deposit rates will 
be the company-specific rates established for the most recent period; 
(3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rates will be the 
PRC-wide rates established in the final results of these reviews; and 
(4) the cash deposit rates for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise 
from the PRC will be the rates applicable to the PRC supplier of that 
exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in 
effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative reviews.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's 
regulations 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.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-28571 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P