[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22045-22047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11056]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-412-602]


Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From the United Kingdom

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or John Beck, Office of 
Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766 or (202) 482-3464, respectively. [[Page 22046]] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 7, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain 
Forged Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom (52 FR 35467). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(2), in September 1993, United 
Engineering and Forging (UEF) requested an administrative review of the 
antidumping order covering the period September 1, 1992, through August 
31, 1993. We initiated the administrative review on October 18, 1993 
(58 FR 53710), and are conducting it in accordance with section 751 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Review

    The products covered in this review are certain forged steel 
crankshafts (CFSCs). 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. The 
products are currently classifiable under items 8483.10.10.10, 
8483.10.10.30, 8483.10.30.10, and 8483.10.30.50 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Neither cast crankshafts 
nor forged crankshafts with shipping weights of less than 40 pounds or 
more than 750 pounds are subject to this review. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Statute and to the 
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Such or Similar Merchandise

    In determining similar merchandise comparisons, we considered the 
following physical characteristics, which appear in order of 
importance: (1) Twisted vs. untwisted; (2) number of throws; (3) ship 
weight; (4) forging method; (5) engine type; (6) number of bearings; 
(7) number of flanges; and, (8) number of counterweights (see the 
February 4, 1993, model matching methodology memorandum from Louis 
Apple, Acting Division Director to David L. Binder, Acting Director, 
Office of Antidumping Investigations; and the April 26, 1995, 
memorandum from the case analyst to the file).

United States Price (USP)

    We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to an unrelated 
purchaser before importation into the United States and because 
exporter's sales price methodology was not otherwise indicated. We 
based purchase price on the packed, c.i.f. price to the first unrelated 
purchaser in the United States.
    We made deductions from USP, where appropriate, for ocean and 
foreign inland freight, U.S. duties, harbor maintenance and merchandise 
processing fees, marine insurance and U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. For certain 
sales made by UEF's Shardlow facility, ocean freight, foreign inland 
freight, U.S. duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses were not 
reported. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we 
have relied upon the best information available (BIA) in these 
preliminary results to value these unreported expenses for those sales. 
As BIA, we applied the largest reported amount to each of Shardlow's 
unreported expenses. Based on verification, we requested UEF to correct 
its reported brokerage and handling expenses, and ocean freight 
expenses identified in the August 23, 1994, verification reports. In 
addition, we made certain corrections to UEF's reported credit 
expenses, warranty expenses, U.S. duty expenses, marine insurance 
expenses and additional corrections to ocean freight and U.S. brokerage 
and handling expenses identified in the verification reports.
    For one crankshaft model, we increased USP to account for tooling 
and manufacturing costs that were not included in the U.S. sales 
invoice, but were billed separately to the U.S. customer. Such costs 
are normally considered a component of USP for that merchandise (see 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Forged 
Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom (52 FR 5975 (February 14, 
1991)).
    We also made adjustments to USP, as appropriate, for price and/or 
quantity changes subsequent to shipment.
    Finally, we made an adjustment for taxes paid on comparison sales 
in the United Kingdom, in accordance with our practice, pursuant to the 
Court of International Trade (CIT) decision in Federal-Mogul, et al v. 
United States, 834 F. Supp. 1993. See Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Color Negative Photographic Paper and 
Chemical Components Thereof from Japan (59 FR 16177, 16179 (April 6, 
1994)), for an explanation of this tax methodology.

Foreign Market Value

    In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of CFSCs 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating foreign 
market value (FMV), we compared the volume of the respondent's home 
market sales to the volume of its third country sales, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we 
determined that the home market is viable, and that it is the most 
appropriate basis for calculating FMV.
    Where home market sales were used for comparisons, we calculated 
FMV based on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to customers in the 
United Kingdom. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts. 
We also made adjustments to FMV, where appropriate, for price and/or 
quantity changes subsequent to shipment.
    In light of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision 
in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. 
United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the Department no longer 
can deduct home market movement charges from FMV pursuant to its 
inherent power to fill in gaps in the antidumping statute. Instead, we 
adjust for those expenses under the circumstance-of-sale (COS) 
provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a). Accordingly, in the present case, we 
adjusted for post-sale home market inland freight charges under the COS 
provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a).
    Because all price-to-price comparisons involved purchase price 
sales, we also made COS adjustments, where appropriate, for differences 
in credit expenses, warranty expenses, and pre-sale and post-sale 
warehousing expenses on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.56(a). We treated the pre-sale warehousing expense as a direct 
selling expense because UEF has an agreement with its U.S. customer 
that it will store the subject merchandise in a warehouse before it 
transfers title of the merchandise to its customer. In accordance with 
section 773(a)(1) of the Act, we then added U.S. packing costs to all 
home market prices. We did not deduct home market packing costs because 
UEF could not report them separately.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to FMV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.57. [[Page 22047]] 
    For two U.S. products, we found no home market products sold in 
contemporaneous periods which had an adjustment for differences in 
physical characteristics of merchandise that was less than 20 percent 
of the cost of manufacture of the U.S. product. For sales of one U.S. 
product, we deemed it inappropriate to match a twisted with an 
untwisted crankshaft (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom 
(52 FR 32951, 32953 (September 1, 1987)). For the second U.S. product, 
there were no contemporaneous sales of comparable home market products. 
For these products, we based FMV on CV. We calculated CV based on the 
sum of the respondent's submitted cost of materials, fabrication, 
general expenses, U.S. packing and profit. In addition, we increased 
the respondent's submitted general and administrative expenses (G&A) to 
include certain forging division G&A items (see August 18, 1994, 
verification report for a further discussion). According to section 
773(e)(1)(B) (i) and (ii) of the Act, we included the actual general 
expenses which exceeded the statutory minimum (ten percent of the cost 
of manufacturing (COM)). We used the statutory minimum profit, which is 
eight percent of the sum of COM and general expenses, because the 
actual profit amount was less than the statutory minimum.
    We made adjustments to CV, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56, for 
differences in circumstances of sale. These adjustments were made for 
differences in credit expenses, warranties, and warehousing.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a). 
All currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified information 
provided by respondent by using standard verification procedures, 
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, 
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of 
original source documentation containing relevant information.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period September 1, 1992, through 
August 31, 1993:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
          Manufacturer/exporter               Review period    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UEF......................................    9/01/92--8/31/93       0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may request a disclosure within 5 days of 
publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days of 
the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 
days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter. 
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of 
publication. Rebuttal briefs, 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 case briefs.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service.

    Furthermore, the following deposit requirement will be effective 
for all shipments of CFSCs from the United Kingdom 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 Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for UEF 
will be the rate established in the final results of this review, 
except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de 
minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or 
investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will 
continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent 
period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a 
prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer 
is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most 
recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if 
neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 
any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate 
will be the ``all others'' rate, as set forth below.

    On March 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in 
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and 
Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), 
decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company, 
it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department 
has determined that in order to implement this decision, it is 
appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping 
findings, unless we are able to ascertain that ``all others'' rate from 
the original investigation, the Department has determined that it is 
appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first 
final results of administrative review published by the Department (or 
that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result 
of ligitation) as the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of 
establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative 
reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty 
order, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be 
14.67 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV 
investigation.

    These cash deposit 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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: April 27, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-11056 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P