16768 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

expenses and added the product

specific U.S. direct selling expenses in

accordance with sections 773(a)(8) and

773(a)(6)(iii) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In

accordance with the Department’s

practice, we have determined that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from a benchmark

by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is

defined as the rolling average of rates for

the past 40 business days. When we

determine that a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margins exist for the period March 1,

1995 through February 29, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

CBCC ............................................ 2.27

Minasligas ..................................... 7.98

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Interested parties

are invited to comment on the

preliminary results. Parties who submit

arguments in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) A statement of the issue:

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. All case briefs must be

submitted within 30 days of the date of

publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs, which are limited to issues raised

in the case briefs, may be filed not later

than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

EP and NV may vary from the

percentages stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service. The final results of this review

shall be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties. For duty assessment

purposes, we calculated an importerspecific assessment rate by aggregating

the dumping margins calculated for all

U.S. sales to each importer and dividing

this amount by the total quantity of

subject merchandise sold to each of the

respective importers. This specific rate

calculated for each importer will be

used for the assessment of antidumping

duties on the relevant entries of subject

merchandise during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of ferrosilicon from Brazil entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for CBCC and Minasligas

will be the rates established in the final

results of administrative review, except

if the rate is less than 0.5 percent, ad

valorem and, therefore, de minimis

within the meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, the

cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less than fair

value (LTFV) investigation or a previous

review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

published in the most recent period; (3)

if the exporter is not a firm covered in

this review, a previous review, or the

LTFV investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be the rate established for the most

recent period for the manufacturer of

the merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 35.95

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made

effective by the antidumping duty order

(59 FR 11769, March 14, 1994). These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8956 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–412–602]

Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From

the United Kingdom; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Revocation of

Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Revocation of Antidumping

Duty Order.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on certain

forged steel crankshafts from the United

Kingdom (61 FR 64055). This review

covers shipments of this merchandise to

the United States during the period

September 1, 1994 through August 31,

1995.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments and rebuttal

comments received, we have corrected

certain clerical errors in the margin

calculations. The final weighted-average

dumping margin for the reviewed firm

is listed below in the section entitled

‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Dirstine, Lyn Johnson, or Richard

Rimlinger, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16769

Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202)

482–4733.

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

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 3, 1996, the Department

published the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

forged steel crankshafts from the United

Kingdom (61 FR 64055). This review

covers shipments of this merchandise to

the United States during the period

September 1, 1994 through August 31,

1995.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. At the request of

petitioner, the Krupp Gerlach Company

(KGC), we held a public hearing on

January 21, 1997. The Department has

now conducted this administrative

review in accordance with section 751

of the Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

certain forged steel crankshafts. The

term ‘‘crankshafts,’’ as used in this

review, includes forged carbon or alloy

steel crankshafts with a shipping weight

between 40 and 750 pounds, whether

machined or unmachined. These

products are currently classifiable under

item numbers 8483.10.10.10,

8483.10.10.30, 8483.10.30.10, and

8483.10.30.50 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). Neither cast

crankshafts nor forged crankshafts with

shipping weights of less than 40 pounds

or more than 750 pounds are subject to

this review. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive of the scope of the

order.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of crankshafts, British Steel

Forgings (BSF), and the period

September 1, 1994 through August 31,

1995.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made some changes

in the final results in our calculations

for the preliminary results of review, we

inadvertently did not take into account

credit expense adjustments that

respondent reported prior to verification

for certain U.S. models when making

circumstance-of-sale adjustments. We

have included the correct credit costs in

our final calculations. We also

improperly converted amounts stated in

Pounds Sterling to U.S. dollars by

multiplying amounts stated in Pounds

Sterling by the applicable-exchangerate-conversion factors when, in fact,

the Pounds Sterling amounts should

have been divided by those conversion

factors. We have converted currencies

correctly in our final calculations. We

incorrectly made deductions from,

rather than additions to, home market

(HM) sales for certain supplemental

charges. We made the appropriate

corrections for these final results.

Finally, we inadvertently omitted

supplemental charges related to U.S.

sales which resulted in understated U.S.

prices. We added these supplemental

charges to the relevant U.S. sales for

these final results.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. On January 2, and

January 9, 1997, we received case and

rebuttal briefs from KGC and BSF.

Comment 1: KGC argues that the

Department incorrectly calculated

constructed value (CV) because it

computed a simple-average profit figure

using only the profit margins of the BSF

crankshaft forging and machining

facilities and did not include the profit

realized by British Steels Engineering

Steels (BSES), the division that supplies

the steel for producing crankshafts. KGC

argues that, because the Department

considers BSF and BSES to be divisions

of the same corporation for purposes of

determining raw material costs, they

also must be treated as a single

corporate entity for purposes of

determining the profits generated by

their combined activities.

KGC further argues that the

Department incorrectly included in its

calculations the loss realized by one of

the four crankshaft forging and

machining facilities. KGC argues that, as

stated in § 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, as

amended by the URAA, CV must be

based on profits (i.e., not losses) realized

in the ordinary course of trade.

Therefore, KGC contends, the

Department should not have allowed

this loss to reduce average profit used

for CV.

In rebuttal, BSF states that the

Department correctly calculated the

profit percentage used in the calculation

of CV. BSF contends that it properly

determined profit by referring to the

management reports that it uses to

prepare the consolidated financial

statements at the level of reporting

which most specifically relates to the

sale of crankshafts in the United

Kingdom, i.e., the facilities which

produce and sell crankshafts for

consumption in the United Kingdom

and reflected in the financial records of

those facilities. BSF argues that, when

BSES ships steel to BSF (another

division of the same company) for

processing into crankshafts, there is no

sale involved; rather, BSF asserts, it is

making an interdivisional transfer of

raw materials within the same company.

BSF further argues that BSES’s profit on

sales of a full range of products

including downstream steel products to

customers outside of the company has

nothing to do with BSF’s profit on sales

on crankshafts. BSF contends that,

contrary to KGC’s interpretation,

nowhere in the URAA or the Statement

of Administrative Action (SAA) is it

ever suggested that, in computing the

level of profit, the Department should

ignore facilities at which expenses

exceeded revenue.

Department’s Position: As in the

previous review, we continue to

consider BSF and BSES to be divisions

of the same corporate entity. See Certain

Forged Steel Crankshafts from the

United Kingdom, 61 FR 54613 (October

21, 1996) (Crankshafts V). However, this

does not necessarily mean that the

combined profits and losses of these two

sister divisions of the same corporate

entity should be used as the profit

reflective of crankshaft sales. First, we

do not consider the transfer of the raw

material, i.e., steel from one division to

another division within the same

company, to be a transaction in this

case, so there is no profit present in that

transaction. Second, there is no

connection between crankshafts and the

profit that BSES realizes on its wide line

of steel products, many of which have

no relationship whatsoever with

crankshafts.

We note that for the preliminary

results we used the combined profit of

BSF’s four crankshaft-forging and

machining facilities but incorrectly

stated to interested parties that we had

used a simple average profit figure for

these facilities. For these final results

we have used a profit figure based on

the combination of the weighted-average

profit rates for each of the four
16770 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

crankshaft-forging and machining

facilities. This rate is appropriate

because, as a combined rate, it is

directly related to the production and

sale of the subject merchandise.

With respect to petitioner’s argument

that for the profit calculation we must

exclude losses by one of BSF’s facilities,

we disagree. Contrary to our statement

in the preliminary results of this review,

we did not base profit for CV on the

methodology set forth in § 773(e)(2)(A)

of the statute. Rather, the Department

was unable to calculate the actual

amounts of profit realized in connection

with the production and sale of the

foreign like product because the

information to calculate a profit on that

basis was not available. Accordingly, as

facts available, we used the actual

amounts of profit realized by BSF in

connection with the production and sale

of merchandise that is in the same

general category of products as the

subject merchandise, the alternative

methodology set forth in § 773(e)(2)(B)(i)

of the statute. This alternative method

does not require that all sales used to

determine the profit amount be within

the ordinary course of trade. Therefore,

we calculated the weighted-average

profit based upon the profit experience

of each of BSF’s manufacturing plants

that produce crankshafts (i.e., the same

general category of products as the

subject merchandise).

Moreover, the profit and loss

experience of the four plants is relevant

to the overall profit determination for

the foreign like product because those

facilities each produce subject

merchandise (or foreign like product).

Comment 2: KGC argues that, unless

the Department uses the profit of both

BSES and BSF in its computation of

profit for CV, it must use transfer prices

between BSES and BSF rather than cost

of production (COP) as the measure of

BSF’s raw material cost of steel. In

rebuttal, BSF contends that KGC

essentially repeats its arguments that it

made during the fifth administrative

review and which the Department

rejected.

Department’s Position: We have

addressed the issue of profit in response

to the previous comment. Regarding the

cost of steel, because BSF and BSES are

divisions of the same corporation, BSF’s

steel cost for producing crankshafts is

the COP of the steel manufactured by

BSES. Therefore, we used the COP data

provided by BSF, which we verified, in

calculating CV. See Crankshafts V at

54614.

Comment 3: KGC argues that the

Department incorrectly calculated

normal value (NV) for a HM crankshaft

model which was used for price-to-price

comparisons to two crankshaft models

sold in the United States and provides

calculations it conducted. KGC

contends that the Department’s

calculations understate the true NV of

the HM model by more than ten percent.

BSF notes that certain supplemental

charges were incorrectly subtracted

from, rather than added to, HM models.

Department’s Position: We agree with

petitioner in part. We inadvertently

deducted two supplemental charges

applicable to HM sales from, rather than

added to, HM price for the preliminary

results. We have corrected this error for

these final results. In addition, as a

result of verification, we recalculated

the first supplemental charge and used

the recalculated value in the

preliminary results. However, in its

calculations for its case brief, KGC used

the pre-verification value for the first

supplemental charge rather than the

recalculated amount. Moreover, KGC

applied the highest reported expenses

for shipments of the comparator model

in its calculations as opposed to a

weighted-average expense amount

which we used in our preliminary

calculations. Therefore, KGC’s

calculation of NV does not reflect the

information on the record and our

practice.

Comment 4: KGC argues that the

Department should apply as ‘‘best

information available’’ (i.e., facts

available) a 9.77 percent margin to

partially machined crankshafts which is

the BIA rate that the Department

applied to this merchandise in the third

administrative review because the

record of this review does not provide

an adequate basis to assess the accuracy

of the information BSF has provided

with regard to its partially machined

crankshafts.

Specifically, KGC argues that the

record in this review does not provide

adequate information to ensure that the

Department calculated NV for BSF’s

partially machined crankshafts

properly. KGC first claims that BSF

failed to describe in its response the

rudimentary machining processes that it

applied to its partially machined

crankshafts and the costs associated

with each such process. Second, KGC

claims that there is no explanation on

the record as to why the total costs BSF

reported in its supplemental

questionnaire response for these

partially machined crankshafts do not

tie to the sum of the forging costs and

machining costs reported by BSF in its

initial questionnaire response. Third,

KGC notes that the Department did not

address partially machined crankshafts

in its verification report.

In response, BSF states that petitioner

never argues that the information on the

record is incorrect but only that

information which was not supplied

was never verified. BSF argues that the

total costs for the partially machined

crankshafts which it submitted in its

supplemental response are correct. BSF

further contends that it described in

detail the rudimentary machining

processes involved in the production of

its partially machined crankshafts in its

initial questionnaire response and in its

supplemental questionnaire response.

BSF suggests that KGC’s confusion and

inability to tie total costs submitted for

partially machined crankshafts to the

sum of the forging and machining costs

separately submitted by BSF is the

result of KGC erroneously considering

COP and transfer-price data of steel that

BSF uses to make crankshafts as

submitted in a table in BSF’s initial

questionnaire response to be costs of

forging. BSF notes that the Department

never requested that it report separately

the costs of forging for partially

machined crankshafts and, therefore, it

never submitted such data. However,

BSF contends that the total costs of the

partially machined crankshafts which it

did submit are nonetheless accurate and

could still be verified by the Department

if necessary. The Department, according

to BSF, should reject KGC’s claim that

BIA should be applied to partiallymachined crankshafts.

Department’s Position: We are

satisfied with BSF’s comprehensive

description of the process of

manufacturing partially machined

crankshafts. Our analysis of the record

evidence and our findings at verification

give us no reason to believe that the

total cost data submitted for partially

machined crankshafts was inaccurate.

The Department’s regulations provide

for significant flexibility in conducting

verifications by permitting the

verification of a sample of data that the

Department considers relevant to factual

information submitted. Recognizing that

it is administratively impossible for us

to verify every topic, we purposefully

selected those items to examine in detail

that we considered to reflect the

universe of subject merchandise in this

proceeding., i.e., a complete

examination of the costs of the one HM

model alleged to have been sold below

cost, a complete examination of the CV

methodology and calculation for a

selected model sold in the United

States, and a complete examination of

the machining costs for a machined

crankshaft. Other than the corrections

and recalculations as noted in our

verification report and analysis
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16771

memorandum, we found the data

submitted by BSF to be accurate and we

have no reason to disregard the other

portions of its response (e.g., BSF’s data

regarding partially machined

crankshafts).

Comment 5: Based on a press release

and newspaper article announcing that

BSF’s parent sold the respondent’s

forging facilities to a new company,

KGC argues that, given the uncertainty

about the future ownership and

potential business plans of BSF, the

Department cannot reasonably reach the

conclusion, required under 19 CFR

§ 353.25(a)(1)(ii)), that BSF or its

successor is not likely to export

crankshafts to the United States in the

future at less than NV. KGC urges the

Department to continue the existing

order until the Department can

reasonably determine that BSF’s future

U.S. pricing practices will not result in

less-than-NV sales.

In rebuttal, BSF argues that KGC

provides no legal basis to support its

contention that the Department should

not revoke the existing order as it

cannot reasonably determine that BSF is

unlikely to make sales at less than NV.

BSF further argues that the lack of

precedent to support KGC’s argument is

not surprising; BSF has not discovered

any instance in which the Department

has decided not to revoke an order

because of a change in ownership.

Citing Toshiba Corp. v. United States,

15 CIT 597, 600 (1991) (Toshiba), BSF

argues that the Department’s policy in a

revocation proceeding is to examine

only the information integral to its

antidumping investigation and not to

gather all economic or financial

information about a company regardless

of its relevance or credibility. BSF

further argues that, in light of Toshiba,

KGC’s assertion that the proposed sale

of BSF in some way affects the

Department’s revocation determination

is incorrect. BSF concludes that its

record of three years without dumping

margins provides abundant evidence

that sales of crankshafts by BSF compete

fairly in the United States. BSF urges

the Department to continue its practice

of revoking orders after three years of de

minimis margins.

Department’s Position: Pursuant to

the Department’s revocation

requirements under 19 CFR § 353.25(a),

respondent in this case filed a timely

request for revocation under § 353.25(b),

certified that sales in the current review

period were made at not less than

normal value under § 353.25(b)(1), and

has established the requisite three

consecutive years of de minimis margins

under § 353.25(a)(2)(i). With respect to

the issue of likelihood of resumption of

dumping under § 353.25(a)(2)(ii), no

evidence was submitted on the record of

this case in support of the contention

that BSF is likely to resume dumping

after revocation of the order. Petitioner

has instead argued that the most recent

change in the company’s ownership by

itself provides a basis for the

Department to deny revocation in this

case because ‘‘the Department cannot

reasonably reach the conclusion,

required under 19 CFR § 353.25(a)(1)(ii),

that BSF or its successor is unlikely to

export crankshafts to the United States

in the future at less than NV.’’ KGC

January 2, 1997 submission at 22.

We disagree. Petitioner has failed to

establish any relationship between the

reported change in ownership and the

likelihood of resumption of dumping by

BSF. Petitioner’s argument amounts to

mere speculation, particularly where, as

here, the company under review has

changed ownership in the past without

a corresponding effect on the company’s

pricing behavior sufficient to generate a

margin of dumping greater than de

minimis. Indeed, the company’s

previous change of ownership combined

with its continued pricing practices

indicates that, for this product, changes

in corporate ownership are not likely to

affect pricing of subject merchandise

sufficient to warrant denial of

revocation. Contrary to petitioner’s

contention, the continuation of de

minimis margins following the previous

change in ownership tends to support

revocation in this case because it

indicates that such a change by itself

does not have a meaningful effect on

pricing in the crankshaft market.

In sum, there is no evidence on the

record to substantiate petitioner’s

concern that BSF is likely to resume

sales at dumped prices. Because BSF

has made sales at not less than NV for

three consecutive reviews and because

there is no evidence on the record to

indicate the likelihood of resumption of

sales at dumped prices, we are revoking

the antidumping duty order with

respect to BSF. See Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Revocation In Part; Pressure

Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, (55

FR 6031, 6032; February 21, 1990).

Further, since BSF is the only company

covered by the antidumping duty order

on crankshafts from the United

Kingdom, this action constitutes a

revocation of the order.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

determine that the following weightedaverage margin exists for the period

September 1, 1994 through August 31,

1995.

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

percent

BSF ................................................. 0.31

As stated in our response to comment

number 5 above, we have determined

that BSF has met the requirements for

revocation set forth in 19 CFR

§ 353.25(a) of our regulations. We are

therefore revoking the order with

respect to crankshafts from the United

Kingdom, based on our determination

that BSF is the only known producer of

crankshafts.

This revocation applies to all entries

of the subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after August 31,

1995. The Department will order the

suspension of liquidation ended for all

such entries and will instruct the

Customs Service to release any cash

deposit or bonds. The Department will

further instruct Customs to refund with

interest any cash deposits on entries

made on or after August 31, 1995. In

addition, the Department will terminate

the review covering shipments of

subject merchandise from the United

Kingdom during the period September

1, 1995 through August 31, 1996, which

was initiated on October 17, 1996 (61

FR 54154).

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 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.

Dated: April 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8954 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P