[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35724-35726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17278]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-810]


Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Termination in Part.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on chromeplated lug nuts from Taiwan. The review 
covers 19 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States for the period September 1, 1994, through August 31, 
1995. The review indicates the existence of margins for all firms.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 
to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between export 
price and the NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) and statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4195 or 482-3814, 
respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping 
duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). The 
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' on September 12, 1995 (60 FR 47349). The 
petitioner, Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated), 
requested that we conduct an administrative review for the period 
September 1, 1994, through August 31, 1995. A respondent, Chuen Chao 
Enterprise Company LTD (Chuen Chao) requested an administrative review 
of its sales. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 12, 1995 (60 FR 
53164), and sent questionnaires to the following firms: Anmax 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (Anmax), Buxton International Corporation 
(Buxton), Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co. (Chu Fong), Everspring Plastic 
Corp. (Everspring), Gingen Metal Corp. (Gingen), Goldwinate Associates, 
Inc. (Goldwinate), Gourmet Equipment Corporation (Gourmet), Hwen Hsin 
Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Hwen), Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Kwan 
How), Kwan Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd (Kwan Ta), Kuang Hong Industries, 
Ltd. (Kuang), Multigrand Industries Inc. (Multigrand), San Chien 
Electric Industrial Works, Ltd. (San Chien), San Shing Hardware Works 
Co., Ltd. (San Shing), Transcend International Co. (Transcend), Trade 
Union International Inc./Top Line (Top Line), Uniauto, Inc. (Uniauto), 
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company, Inc (Wing) and Chuen Chao. 
On December 11, 1995, Chuen Chao withdrew its request for 
administrative review. Since Chuen Chao was the only party which 
requested a review of its sales, we are terminating the review of Chuen 
Chao and its entries will be liquidated at the rate at which they were 
entered. Gourmet responded to the questionnaire. Buxton and Uniauto are 
related parties and so responded to the questionnaire as one 
respondent.
    Questionnaires that were sent to Chu Fong, Kwan How, Kwan Ta, 
Everspring, Gingen, Goldwinate, Multigrand and Kuang were returned as 
undeliverable. These firms will receive the ``all others''

[[Page 35725]]

rate established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, 6.93 
percent.
    The Department has now conducted the administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    On April 19, 1994, the Department issued its Final Scope 
Clarifications on Chrome-Plated lug Nuts from Taiwan and the PRC. The 
scope, as clarified, is described in the subsequent paragraph. All lug 
nuts covered by this review conform to the April 19, 1994 scope 
clarification.
    Imports covered by this review are shipments of one-piece and two-
piece chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, more than 11/16 
inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal (hex) 
size of at lease 3/4 inches (19.05 millimeters) but not more than on 
inch (25.4 mm), plus or minus 1/16 of an inch (1.59 mm). The term 
``unfinished'' refers to unplated and/or unassembled chrome-plated lug 
nuts. The subject merchandise is used for securing wheels to cars, 
vans, trucks, utility vehicles, and trailers. Zinc-plated lug nuts, 
finished or unfinished, and stainless-steel capped lug nuts are not in 
the scope of this review. Chrome-plated lock nuts are also not in the 
scope of the review.
    During the period of review (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading 
7318.16.00.00. Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this 
review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    We preliminarily determine that in accordance with section 776(d) 
of the Act, the use of facts available is appropriate for Anmax, Hwen, 
San Chien, San Shing, Transcend, Top Line, and Wing because these firms 
did not respond to the Department's antidumping questionnaire. The 
Department finds that, in not responding to the questionnaire, these 
firms failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to 
comply with requests for information from the Department. Because 
necessary information is not available on the record with regard to 
sales by these firms as a result of their withholding the requested 
information, we must make our preliminary determination based on facts 
otherwise available pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
    Where the department must base the entire dumping margin for a 
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because 
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the 
Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of the 
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also 
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information 
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous 
administrative review, or other information placed on the record. The 
statute also provides that the facts otherwise available may be based 
on secondary information. Because information from prior proceedings 
constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) provides that the 
Department shall, to the extend practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) provides that corroborate 
means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary 
information to be used has probative value.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent 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. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. 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 (see, e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review (60 FR 49567), where the Department disregarded 
the highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin). No such circumstances exist in this case 
which would cause the Department to disregard a prior margin. In this 
case, we have used the highest rate from any prior segment of the 
proceeding. 10.67 percent. This rate was calculated in the Amendment to 
the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (56 FR 47737), 
covering the period May 1, 1990 through October 31, 1990.
    The Department also sent questionnaires to Gourmet and Buxton/
Uniauto which provided us with responses to our questionnaires. 
However, while planning for verification of these two firms, the 
Department received submissions from each firm stating that a 
verification would produce the same results as in previous reviews 
where the Department was unable to reconcile the data Gourmet and 
Buxton/Uniauto submitted in their responses to our questionnaire with 
their audited financial statements (see Buxton/Uniauto and Gourmet 
submissions dated March 28, 1996, and May 1, 1996, respectively). 
Reliance on the accounting system used for the preparation of the 
audited financial statements is a key and vital part of the 
Department's determination that a company's sales and constructed value 
data are credible. Section 776(a)(2)(D) states that the Department 
``shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available 
in reaching the applicable determination under this title'' if an 
interested party or any other person provides information but the 
information can not be verified. Because their submissions were 
unreconcilable to their audited financial statements and thus 
unverifiable, we have determined to apply facts available to Gourmet 
and Buxton/Uniauto. However, because these firms cooperated with our 
request for information, we are not using an adverse inference in 
selecting from among the facts otherwise available. In this case, we 
have used Gourmet's and Buxton/Uniauto's highest rates from a prior 
review which are 6.47 percent and 6.93 percent respectively.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margins exist for the period September 1, 1994, through 
August 31, 1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                     Manufacturer/Exporter                       margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation........................      6.47
Buxton International/Uniauto..................................      6.93
Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co.................................      6.93
Transcend International.......................................     10.67
San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd...............................     10.67
Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd.....................................     10.67
Everspring Plastic Corp.......................................      6.93
Gingen Metal Corp.............................................      6.93
Goldwinate Associates, Inc....................................      6.93
Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd................................     10.67

[[Page 35726]]

                                                                        
Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd.................................      6.93
Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd..................................      6.93
Kuang Hong Industries Ltd.....................................      6.93
Multigrand Industries Inc.....................................      6.93
San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd.............................     10.67
Trade Union International Inc./Top Line.......................     10.67
Uiauto, Inc...................................................      6.93
Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company....................     10.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(c)(6). Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days 
of the date of publication (19 CFR 353.38(b)). Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after publication of this notice, or 
the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs 
within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice (19 CFR 
353.38(c)). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, 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 
the final results of review, including the results of its analysis of 
issues raised in any such written comments.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between export price and NV may vary from the percentage 
stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions on each manufacturer/exporter directly to the 
U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of the subject merchandise, entered, or withdrawn 
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
firms will be those firms' rates established in the final results of 
this administrative review; (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 previous 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 6.93 
percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These 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: July 1, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-17278 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M