Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-583-810]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration/International Trade Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review and partial termination.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by a petitioner, the Department of

Commerce has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The review covers four

firms and the period April 18, 1991, through August 31, 1992. 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: February 1, 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 of Commerce (the Department)

published the antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from

Taiwan (56 FR 47737). The Department published a notice of

``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' on September 11, 1992

(57 FR 41725). On September 21, 1992, the petitioner, Consolidated

International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated), requested that we

conduct an administrative review for the period April 18, 1991, through

August 31, 1992. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 22, 1992 (57

FR 48202), announcing an administrative review of King Kong

Corporation, San Shin Hardware Works Co., Ltd. (San Shin), Gourmet

Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation (Gourmet), Chu Fong Metallic Industrial

Corporation (Chu Fong), and San Chien Electric Industrial Works, Ltd.

(San Chien).

On January 8, 1993, the petitioner withdrew its request for review

of San Shin. Therefore, we are terminating the review. We were unable

to identify an address for King Kong Corporation. We sent

questionnaires to Gourmet, Chu Fong, and San Chien. We received a

response from Gourmet and conducted a verification at Gourmet's office

September 22, 1993, through September 26, 1993.

On May 26, 1993, the petitioner alleged middleman dumping of the

subject merchandise. Based on information compiled during the review

process, the Department determined to apply best information available

(BIA) to Gourmet and the two non-respondents. Therefore, the Department

did not initiate a middleman dumping investigation (see Use of BIA,

Middleman dumping allegation, and Transhipment allegation memos to

Holly Kuga, Director, Office of Antidumping Compliance).

On June 11, 1993, the petitioner alleged that the respondent was

shipping the subject merchandise through Canada to the United States.

We examined data provided by the U.S. Customs Service which showed no

evidence that the Canadian buyer resold the subject merchandise to the

United States during the period of review (POR) (see Use of BIA,

Middleman dumping allegation, and Transhipment allegation memo to Holly

Kuga, Director, Office of Antidumping Compliance).

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 POR, chrome-plated lug nuts were provided for under

subheading 7318.16.00.00 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.

Best Information Available

Based on information gathered while on verification, the Department

determined that the data submitted by Gourmet for this review are

unverifiable because the response Gourmet submitted was based on an

``in-house'' accounting system that could not be reconciled to an

audited financial statement.

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 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 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)). Since Gourmet's ``in-house'' system cannot be relied upon

due to numerous deficiencies (see Use of BIA, and Middleman dumping

allegation memo to Holly Kuga, Director, Office of Antidumping

Compliance), the Department has determined to apply BIA to Gourmet's

sales in the POR, pursuant to Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act.

Chu Fong and San Chien both failed to respond to the Department's

questionnaire. Accordingly, we are applying BIA to their entries.

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 may determine, on a case-by-case basis, what constitutes

BIA. For the purposes of these preliminary results, we applied the

following two tiers of BIA 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.

Therefore, for parties refusing to respond, Chu Fong and San Chien,

the first-tier BIA rate we applied in these preliminary results is

10.67 percent, which is the highest rate the Department found in the

original LTFV investigation, Gourmet provided us with responses to our

questionnaires, however the information on the record was unverifiable.

Accordingly, we applied the second-tier BIA rate of 6.47 percent. This

rate represents the highest rate ever applicable to Gourmet.

King Kong Corporation received the ``all other'' rate because the

Department attempted, but could not locate, an address for it.

Preliminary Results of Review

We have preliminarily determined that the following margins exist

for the period April 18, 1991, through August 31, 1992:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

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

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

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

King Kong 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 all respondents directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthrmore, 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' 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, 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: February 3, 1994.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-3574 Filed 2-16-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M