Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices 19723

respond to our questionnaire, we have

applied as BIA the highest margin ever

calculated in the investigation or this

first review.

For the 92–93 review we have applied

BIA to sales made by China National

Automotive Industry I/E Corp, Jiangsu,

Yangzhou, Ningbo, Shanghai

Automobile, and Tianjin. Because these

firms did not respond to our

questionnaire, as BIA we have applied

the highest margin ever calculated in

the investigation or this or the prior

review.

Rudong responded to the

Department’s requests for information

for both review periods, but reported no

direct exports to the United States

during either period. Therefore, we are

treating Rudong as a non-shipper for

these reviews. Since the Department has

never determined that a separate rate

should apply to exports from Rudong,

future exports from Rudong will be

subject to cash deposit at the PRC rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp., Nantong Branch ....................................... 09/01/92–08/31/93 45.41

Rudong Grease-Gun ...................................................................................................................................... 04/18/91–08/31/92 *42.42

Factory ........................................................................................................................................................... 09/01/92–08/31/93 *45.41

* No shipments during the period, but never determined to merit a separate rate. Therefore, we applied the PRC rate established in this review.

This is the rate for companies that had shipments, or are presumed to have shipments, during the period, but which were not given separate

rates.

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 publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be 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

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of lug nuts from the PRC entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For Nantong,

which has a separate rate, the cash

deposit rate will be the companyspecific rate published for the most

recent (1992–1993) period; (2) for

Jiangsu, which was previously

investigated and given a separate rate,

the cash deposit rate will be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent (1992–1993) period, which

is based on BIA; (3) for the companies

named above which were not found to

have separate rates, China National

Automotive Industry I/E Corp.,

Yangzhou, Ningbo, Shanghai

Automobile, and Tianjin, as well as for

all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit

rate will be 45.41 percent; and (4) for

non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate applicable

to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also 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 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9835 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–803]

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or

Unfinished, With or Without Handles,

From the People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by a

U.S. importer, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on heavy

forged hand tools, finished or

unfinished, with or without handles

(HFHTs), from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC). The reviews cover two

exporters of subject merchandise to the

United States and the period February 1,

1992, through January 31, 1993. The

reviews indicate the existence of

dumping margins during the period of

review.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below the

foreign market value (FMV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in or

final results of administrative reviews,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between United States price

(U.S. price) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karin Price or Maureen Flannery, Office

of Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4733

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 19, 1991, the Department

published in the Federal Register (56

FR 6622) the antidumping duty orders

on HFHTs from the PRC. On February

17, 1993, the Department published in
19724 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices

the Federal Register (58 FR 8739) a

notice of opportunity to request

administrative reviews of these

antidumping duty orders. On February

26, 1993, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a), a U.S. importer of HFHTs

from the PRC, Olympia Industrial Inc.,

requested that we conduct

administrative reviews of its two

suppliers, Fujian Machinery &

Equipment Import & Export Corporation

(FMEC) and Shandong Machinery

Import & Export Corporation (SMC). We

published the notice of initiation of

these antidumping duty administrative

reviews on March 26, 1993 (58 FR

16397). The Department is conducting

these administrative reviews in

accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of These 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 and wedges); (3) picks and

mattocks (picks/mattocks); and (4) axes,

adzes and similar hewing tools (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 trucks tools including

wrecking bars, digging bars and

tampers; and steel woodsplitting

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 provided

for under the following Harmonized

Tariff System (HTS) subheadings:

8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and

8201.40.60. Specifically excluded from

these reviews 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.

These reviews cover two exporters of

HFHTs from the PRC, FMEC and SMC.

The review period is February 1, 1992

through January 31, 1993.

Separate Rates

The business licenses of both FMEC

and SMC indicate that they are owned

by ‘‘all the people.’’ As stated in 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),

‘‘ownership of a company by all of the

people does not require the application

of a single rate.’’ Accordingly, FMEC

and SMC are eligible for consideration

for separate rates.

To establish whether a company is

sufficiently independent to be entitled

for separate rates, 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 in

Silicon Carbide. Under this policy,

exporters in non-market-economy

(NME) countries 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 exports. Evidence

supporting, though not requiring, a

finding of de jure absence of

government control includes: (1) an

absence of restrictive stipulations

associated with an 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

with respect to exports is based on four

criteria: (1) whether the export prices

are set by or subject to the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporters retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits or financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has autonomy in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether each exporter has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts.

We have found that the evidence on

the record demonstrates an absence of

government control, both in law and in

fact, with respect to FMEC’s and SMC’s

exports according to the criteria

identified in Sparklers and Silicon

Carbide. For further discussion of the

Department’s preliminary determination

that FMEC and SMC are entitled to

separate rates, see Decision

Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga,

Director, Office of Antidumping

Compliance, dated March 13, 1995;

‘‘Separate rates for Fujian Machinery &

Equipment Import & Export Corporation

and Shandong Machinery Import &

Export Corporation in the second

administrative reviews of heavy forged

hand tools, finished or unfinished, with

or without handles, from the People’s

Republic of China,’’ which is on file in

the Central Records Unit (room B099 of

the Main Commerce Building).

Verification

Verification of the questionnaire

responses of FMEC and SMC was

conducted between June 24, 1994, and

July 5, 1994, at FMEC’s facility in

Fuzhou, Fujian Province, at SMC’s

facility in Qingdao City, Shandong

Province, and at two factories which

manufacture HFHTs for FMEC and

SMC, Rizhao Hardware & Machinery

Factory (Rizhao) and Linyi Tool Factory

(Linyi).

United States Price

With the exception of certain of

SMC’s U.S. sales for which the best

information available (BIA) was used, as

described below, the Department used

purchase price and exporter’s sales

price (ESP), in accordance with sections

772(b) and (c) of the Act, in calculating

U.S. price.

We calculated purchase price based

on, as appropriate, the FOB, CIF, or C&F

port price to unrelated purchasers. We

made deductions from purchase price

and ESP sales, where appropriate, for

brokerage and handling, foreign inland

freight, ocean freight, and marine

insurance. Ocean freight services were

provided by both PRC-owned and nonPRC-owned companies. Where we knew

that the company providing the ocean

freight services was not a PRC-owned

company, we used the actual rates

charged; for ocean freight services

provided by PRC-owned companies, we

applied a weighted-average ocean

freight rate derived from those sales for

which we used actual ocean freight

rates. Since marine insurance services

were provided by PRC-owned

companies, we based the deduction for

marine insurance on surrogate values.

We also used surrogate data to value

foreign inland freight and brokerage and

handling. We selected India as the

surrogate country for reasons explained

in the ‘‘Foreign Market Value’’ section

of this notice.

Foreign Market Value

For companies located in NME

countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

provides that the Department shall

determine FMV using a factors of

production methodology if (1) the

merchandise is exported from a NME

country, and (2) the information does

not permit the calculation of FMV using
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices 19725

home market prices, third country

prices, or constructed value (CV) under

section 773(a) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as an NME country.

None of the parties to these proceedings

has contested such treatment in these

reviews. Accordingly, we calculated

FMV in accordance with section 773(c)

of the Act and section 353.52 of the

Department’s regulations. We

determined that India is comparable to

the PRC in terms of per capita gross

national product (GNP), the growth rate

in per capita GNP, and the national

distribution of labor, and is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise.

For further discussion of the

Department’s selection of India as the

primary surrogate country, see

Memorandum to Laurie Lucksinger

dated March 18, 1993; ‘‘AD Order on

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the

People’s Republic of China (case #A–

570–803): Nonmarket-Economy Status

and Surrogate Country Determinations,’’

which is on file in the Central Records

Unit (room B099 of the Main Commerce

Building).

For purposes of calculating FMV, we

valued PRC factors of production as

follows, in accordance with section

773(c)(1) of the Act:

• To value all direct materials used in

the production of HFHTs, including

steel, steel pellets, resin glue, paint,

varnish, wood for handles, iron wedges,

anti-rust oil, scrap steel, detergent, and

dilution, we used the rupee per metric

ton, per kilogram, or per cubic meter

value of imports into India for AprilDecember 1992, obtained from the

Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade

of India, Volume II—Imports, December

1992 (1992 Indian Import Statistics). We

made adjustments to include freight

costs incurred between the suppliers

and the HFHT factories. We also made

an adjustment to the steel input factor

for scrap and waste steel which was

sold.

• For direct labor, we used the labor

rates reported in the Business

International Corporation report IL&T

India, released November 1992. This

source breaks out labor rates between

skilled, unskilled, semi-skilled, and

foreman labor for 1992 and provides

information on the number of labor

hours worked per week.

• For factory overhead, we used

information reported in the December

1992 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin.

From this information, we were able to

determine factory overhead as a

percentage of total cost of manufacture.

• For selling, general, and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, we

used information obtained from the

December 1992 Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin. We calculated an SG&A rate by

dividing SG&A expenses by the cost of

manufacture. Since the calculated SG&A

expense rate is less than 10 percent, we

used the statutory minimum of 10

percent to calculate SG&A expenses.

• To calculate a profit rate, we used

information obtained from the

December 1992 Reserve Bank of India

Bulletin.

• To value the packing materials,

including cartons (except for cartons

used at Rizhao), wood for pallets, antirust paper, anti-dump paper, plastic and

iron straps, plastic bags, iron buttons

and knots, nails, synthetic fiber, and

iron wire, we used import statistics for

India obtained from the 1992 Indian

Import Statistics. We adjusted these

values to include freight costs incurred

between the suppliers and the HFHT

factories. Rizhao uses imported cartons

for packing; we used the import price of

these cartons to value cartons for

Rizhao.

• To value coal, we used the price of

steam coal reported for 1990 in the

International Energy Agency publication

Energy Price and Taxes, 3rd Quarter

1993. We adjusted the value of coal to

reflect inflation through 1992 using

wholesale price indices of India (WPI)

as published in the International

Financial Statistics by the International

Monetary Fund (IMF).

• To value electricity, we used the

price of electricity for 1990 reported in

the Asian Development Bank

publication Energy Indicators of

Developing Member Countries of Asian

Development Bank, July 1992. We

adjusted the value of electricity to

reflect inflation through 1992 using WPI

published by the IMF.

• To value truck freight, we used the

price reported in a June 1992 cable from

the U.S. Embassy in India submitted for

the Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value; Sulfanilic Acid from

the People’s Republic of China (57 FR

29705, July 6, 1992).

• To value rail freight, we used the

price reported in a December 1989 cable

from the U.S. Embassy in India

submitted for the Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Shop Towels of Cotton from the

People’s Republic of China (56 FR 4040,

February 1, 1991). We adjusted the rail

freight rates to reflect inflation through

1992 using WPI published by the IMF.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a).

Currency conversions were made at the

rates certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank.

Best Information Available

In deciding what to use as BIA,

section 353.37(b) of the Department’s

regulations provides that the

Department may take into account

whether a party refuses to provide

requested information or impedes a

proceeding. Thus, the Department

determines on a case-by-case basis what

is BIA. When a company refuses to

provide the information requested in the

form required, or otherwise significantly

impedes the Department’s review, the

Department will normally assign to that

company the higher of (1) The highest

of the rates found for any firm for the

same class or kind of merchandise in

the less-than-fair value (LTFV)

investigation or a prior administrative

review; or (2) the highest rate found in

the current review for any firm for the

same class or kind of merchandise.

When, on the other hand, 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, the Department

will normally assign to those sales the

higher of either: (1) The highest margin

calculated for that company in any

previous review or the original

investigation; or (2) the highest

calculated margin for any respondent

that supplied an adequate response for

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, Germany, Italy, Japan,

Rumania, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand

and the United Kingdom) (58 FR 39729,

July 26, 1993).

The Department used BIA for the

following sales made by SMC: purchase

price sales of axes and sales that were

first presented to the Department at the

onset of verification and not reported in

SMC’s questionnaire responses.

SMC’s sales of axes, a separate class

or kind, were first reported to the

Department in its second supplemental

questionnaire response dated May 14,

1994. Additional sales of axes were then

presented to the Department for the first

time at verification. SMC did not submit

factors of production data for the

models sold in these sales. Since these

sales data were not submitted in a

timely fashion, and because SMC failed

to submit data necessary for the

calculation of FMV for this class or kind

of merchandise, we are applying the
19726 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 1995 / Notices

most adverse BIA to all sales of axes.

See the 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) (comment 6). As

BIA, we are using the highest margin

calculated for that class or kind in the

investigation or any review of sales of

subject merchandise from that same

country.

At the onset of verification, SMC

presented certain sales of axes, picks,

and splitting mauls which had not been

reported to the Department in the

questionnaire responses. As discussed

above, we have applied BIA to all sales

of axes. With regard to picks and

splitting mauls, since these sales data

had not been previously reported to the

Department in any of SMC’s

questionnaire responses, we have

applied BIA to these sales.

Because SMC reported most of its

sales of these classes or kinds of

merchandise in its questionnaire

responses and because it was an

oversight on the part of SMC that these

certain sales were not presented to the

Department until verification, we are

assigning as BIA the higher of either: (1)

The highest margin calculated for the

same class or kind of merchandise for

that company in any previous review or

the original investigation; or (2) the

highest margin calculated for the same

class or kind of merchandise for any

respondent that supplied an adequate

response for the current review.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

As a result of our reviews, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist:

Manufacturer/exporter Time period Margin

(percent)

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation:

Axes/Adzes ................................................................................................................................................. 2/1/92–1/31/93 89.99

Bars/Wedges .............................................................................................................................................. 2/1/92–1/31/93 156.68

Hammers/Sledges ...................................................................................................................................... 2/1/92–1/31/93 130.93

Picks/Mattocks ............................................................................................................................................ 2/1/92–1/31/93 249.35

Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation:

Axes/Adzes ................................................................................................................................................. 2/1/92–1/31/93 89.99

Bars/Wedges .............................................................................................................................................. 2/1/92–1/31/93 167.72

Hammers/Sledges ...................................................................................................................................... 2/1/92–1/31/93 131.38

Picks/Mattocks ............................................................................................................................................ 2/1/92–1/31/93 140.34

Parties to the proceedings 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 publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the publication of this notice,

or the first workday thereafter.

Interested parties may submit case briefs

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

37 days after the date of publication. See

section 353.38(d) of the Department’s

regulations. The Department will

publish a notice of final results of these

administrative reviews, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

U.S. price and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, 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, as provided for by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The case deposit

rates for the reviewed companies named

above which have separate rates will be

the rates for those firms as stated above;

(2) for all other PRC exporters, the cash

deposit rates will be the rates

established in the LTFV investigations;

and (3) the cash deposit rates for nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise

from the PRC will be the rates

applicable to the PRC supplier of that

exporter. The rates established in the

LTFV investigations are 45.42 percent

for hammers/sledges, 31.76 percent for

bars/wedges, 50.81 percent for picks/

mattocks, and 15.02 percent for axes/

adzes. These deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative reviews.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 353.26 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.

These administrative reviews and

notice are in accordance with section

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

1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: April 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–9837 Filed 4–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

U.S. Automotive Parts Advisory

Committee; Closed Meeting

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Closed meeting of U.S.

Automotive Parts Advisory Committee.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Automotive Parts

Advisory Committee (the ‘‘Committee’’)

advises U.S. Government officials on

matters relating to the implementation

of the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act of

1988. The Committee: (1) reports

annually to the Secretary of Commerce

on barriers to sales of U.S.-made auto

parts and accessories in Japanese

markets; (2) assists the Secretary in

reporting to the Congress on the

progress of sales of U.S.-made auto parts

in Japanese markets, including the

formation of long-term supplier

relationships; (3) reviews and considers

data collected on sales of U.S.-made

auto parts to Japanese markets; (4)

advises the Secretary during

consultation with the Government of

Japan on these issues; and (5) assists in

establishing priorities for the

Department’s initiatives to increase

U.S.-made auto parts sales to Japanese