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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-810]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Partial Termination.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by a petitioner and a respondent, the

Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from

Taiwan. The review covers seven firms and the period September 1, 1992,

through August 31, 1993. The review indicates the existence of margins

for the firms.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine to assess

antidumping duties equal to the difference between United States price

and foreign market value.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 1994.

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, NW,

Washington, DC. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4195 or 482-3814,

respectively.

Background

On September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping

duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The Department

published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''

on September 7, 1993 (58 FR 47116). The petitioner, Consolidated

International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated), and a respondent,

Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation (Gourmet), requested that we

conduct an administrative review for the period September 1, 1992,

through August 31, 1993. We published a notice of ``Initiation of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October

18, 1993 (58 FR 53710), for the following firms: Buxton International,

Gourmet, Chu Fong Metallic Industrial Corporation (Chu Fong), San Chien

Electric Industrial Works, Ltd. (San Chien), Everspring Plastic Corp.

(Everspring), Kuang Hong Industries Co., Ltd. (Kuang), and Transcend

International Co. (Transcend). Questionnaires were sent to Buxton,

Everspring, Kuang, Transcend, Gourmet, Chu Fong, and San Chien.

Everspring responded that it has never sold the subject merchandise.

Only Gourmet and Buxton responded to the questionnaire.

The Department has now conducted the administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this review is one-piece and two-piece

chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are more than

\11/16\ inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal

(hex) size of at least \3/4\ inches (19.05 millimeters). 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 this review.

During the period of review (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were

provided for under subheading 7318.16.00.10 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience

and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Use of Best Information Available (BIA)

In deciding what to use as BIA, the Department's regulations

provide that the Department may take into account whether a party

refuses to provide requested information (19 CFR 353.37(b)). Thus, the

Department determines, on a case-by-case basis, what constitutes BIA.

For the purposes of these preliminary results, we applied the following

two-tier BIA analysis where we were unable to use a company's response

for purposes of determining a dumping margin (see Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative review of Antifriction Bearings and

Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58 FR 39739, July 26, 1993):

1. When a company refuses to cooperate with the Department or

otherwise significantly impedes these proceedings, we used as BIA

the higher of (1) the highest of the rates found for any firm for

the same class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin

in the less than fair value investigation (LTFV) or prior

administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate found in this review

for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the same

country of origin.

2. When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for

information and, substantially cooperates in verification, but fails

to provide the information requested in a timely manner or in the

form required or was unable to substantiate it, we used as BIA the

higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to the firm for the

same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation

or a prior administrative review or if the firm has never before

been investigated or reviewed, the all others rate from the LTFV

investigation; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for

the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country

of origin.

Chu Fong, Kuang, Transcend, and San Chien failed to respond to the

Department's questionnaire. Accordingly, for these companies we applied

the first-tier BIA rate of 10.67 percent, which is the highest rate the

Department found in the original LTFV investigation.

Gourmet and Buxton provided us with responses to our

questionnaires. However, the Department determined that the data

Gourmet submitted could not be reconciled to its audited financial

statements. 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. An ``in-house'' system which has not been audited

and is not used for the preparation of the financial statements or for

any purpose other than internal deliberations of the company does not

assure the Department that such costs have been stated in accordance

with generally accepted accounting principles, or that all sales and

costs have been appropriately captured by the ``in-house'' system (see

Final Determination at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon

Steel Flat Products, Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products and

Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37186 (July

9, 1993)). Because their submissions were unreconcilable to their

audited financial statements, we have determined to apply BIA to

Gourmet and Buxton, (see Use of BIA memo to Holly Kuga, Director,

Office of Antidumping Compliance). Accordingly, we applied the second-

tier BIA rate of 6.47 percent to Gourmet and 6.93 percent to Buxton.

These rates represent the highest rates ever applicable to each firm.

Everspring responded that it never sold the subject merchandise,

and we have no information to contradict this claim. If Everspring

begins to sell the subject merchandise, it entries will receive the

``all other rate'' cash deposit rate until we conduct an administrative

review upon request.

Preliminary Results of Review

We have preliminarily determined that the following margins exist

for the period September 1, 1992, through August 31, 1993:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation....................... 6.47

Buxton International......................................... 6.93

Chu Fong Metallic Industrial Work Co., Ltd................... 10.67

Transcend International...................................... 10.67

Kuang Hong Industrial Works.................................. 10.67

San Chien Industrial Works, Ltd.............................. 10.67

Everspring Corporation....................................... 6.93

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

The Department shall determine and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion

of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions

concerning these respondents 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)(1) of the Tariff 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) the ``all others''

rate will remain at 6.93 percent as established in the LTFV

investigation.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade, in Floral Trade

Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul Corporation

and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83, decided

that once an ``all other'' rate is established for a company, it can

only be changed through an administrative review. The Department has

determined that in order to implement these decisions, it is

appropriate to apply 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 for the purposes of establishing cash deposit

in all current and future administrative reviews. The ``all others''

rate in the LTFV investigation was 6.93 percent.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of the next administrative

review.

Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the

date of publication of this notice, and a hearing within 10 days of the

date of publication. Any hearing requested will be held as early as

convenient for parties but not later than 44 days after date of

publication, or the first workday thereafter. Case briefs, or other

written comments, from interested parties may be submitted not later

than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttal comments, 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 its results of its analysis of issues raised in any such

written comments.

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: December 7, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-31138 Filed 12-16-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M