Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-580-601]

Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review.

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

SUMMARY: On September 27, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel cooking

ware from the Republic of Korea. The review covers one manufacturer/

exporter of this merchandise to the United States and the period

January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. We gave interested parties

an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. We received

comments from the petitioner. Based on our analysis of these comments,

we have changed the final results from those presented in the

preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Crumbie or Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 27, 1993, the Department published in the Federal

Register (58 FR 50347) the preliminary results of the administrative

review of certain stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of

Korea (52 FR 2139, January 20, 1987). The Department has now completed

the review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this administrative review are certain

stainless steel cooking ware from the republic of Korea. During the

review period, such merchandise was classifiable under Harmonized

Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 7323.93.00. The products covered by

this order are skillets, frying pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double

boilers, stock pots, dutch ovens, casseroles, steamers, and other

stainless steel vessels, all for cooking on stove top burners, except

tea kettles and fish poachers. Excluded from the scope is stainless

steel kitchen ware. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to

the scope of the product coverage. The review covers Namil Metal

Company, Ltd. (Namil), and the period January 1, 1990 through December

31, 1990 (POR).

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We received comments from the

petitioner, Farberware, Inc. (Farberware).

Comment 1: Farberware states that, in the computer program for the

preliminary results, the Department incorrectly adjusted for

differences in the physical characteristics of similar third-country

and U.S. products by subtracting total cost of manufacturing for third-

country merchandise, expressed in the computer program as ``TDCOM,''

from the cost of manufacturing for U.S. products, expressed in the

computer program as ``USCOM,'' to determine the difference in

merchandise (DIFMER) adjustment. Farberware maintains that TDCOM and

USCOM include both variable and non-variable manufacturing costs for

third-country and U.S. merchandise, respectively.

Farberware argues that the Department should, in accordance with

its established practice, revise the preliminary results computer

program to compare third-country variable cost of manufacturing,

expressed in the computer program as ``TDVARCOM,'' to U.S. variable

cost of manufacturing, expressed in the computer program as

``USVARCOM''.

Department's Position: We agree with Farberware. As is consistent

with our practice, we based our adjustment for the DIFMER on the

differences in variable cost of manufacture (COM) between similar

third-country and U.S. products.

Comment 2: Farberware argues that the DIFMER adjustment was very

substantial for many third-country comparison models. Farberware

asserts that even after the Department changes the computer

instructions to calculate the DIFMER using variable COM rather than

total COM, many of the DIFMER adjustments may be in excess of 20

percent of the total COM of the U.S. merchandise being compared.

In addition to limiting the DIFMER adjustment to differences in the

variable cost of manufacture, Farberware urges the Department to adhere

to its general practice and to use constructed value (CV) as the basis

for determining foreign market value (FMV) for those comparisons in

which the DIFMER adjustment exceeds 20 percent of the total COM of the

U.S. merchandise being compared.

Department's Position: We agree with Farberware. Where the

difference in variable COM between a third-country model and a U.S.

model exceed 20 percent of the total COM of the U.S. merchandise, in

our final results, we used CV as the basis for FMV.

Comment 3: Farberware maintains that the Department's choice of the

best information available (BIA) in the preliminary results of review

is inappropriate. (The Department used the highest rate from a previous

review as BIA to calculate margins for sales for which Namil provided

no model-match or CV data. As BIA, the Department used the dumping

margin of 1.69 percent as was established in the administrative review

of Namil's sales which covered the period January 1, 1989 through

December 31, 1989.)

Farberware maintains that the Department asked Namil in a

supplemental questionnaire regarding sales during the period of review

to provide similar third-country matches for all sales to the United

States, and to provide CV data for United States sales for which there

were no similar matches. Because Namil failed to provide a revised

computer tape product concordance file and failed to provide the

requested CV data, Farberware suggests that the Department use as BIA

the highest margin the Department calculates for any U.S. sale for

Namil in the final margin calculation of this administrative review.

Thus, Farberware argues that the Department should apply the

highest margin calculated for any U.S. sale by Namil to the total net

value of all sales to the United States of those U.S. transactions for

which there was no model match or CV information.

Department's Position: We agree with Farberware that BIA should be

applied to those sales for which no model match or CV information has

been provided by Namil. However, we maintain that the Department's

choice of BIA in the preliminary results of administrative review was

appropriate.

In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we use BIA in

cases where a party refuses or is unable to produce information

requested in a timely manner and in the form required. In cases where a

firm is deemed cooperative, but fails to supply certain FMV information

(e.g., corresponding home market sales within the contemporaneous

period or constructed value data for a few U.S. sales), we apply a BIA

rate to the particular U.S. transactions involved. In such situations,

we use 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 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 (see Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof from France, et al, Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 58 FR 39729, 39739 July 26, 1993).

Namil responded to our questionnaire. Namil, however, failed to

provide either (1) such or similar third-country matches or (2)

constructed value information for some of its U.S. sales during the

period of review. Since Namil attempted to cooperate, we applied a rate

of 1.69 percent, the highest rate ever applicable to Namil for the

subject merchandise (See Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the

Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 56 FR 38114, August 12, 1991), to U.S. sales for which Namil

failed to give either model-match or CV information.

Comment 4: Farberware disagrees with the Department's preliminary

decision to exclude from its analysis those U.S. sales for which Namil

submitted a gross price of zero. Farberware further states that Namil

never explained why these sales had a gross price of zero.

Farberware maintains that the zero gross price has never been shown

to represent anything other than the actual price charged for these

U.S. sales. Thus, Farberware argues that the Department should include

all reported U.S. sales with a gross price of zero in the calculation

of Namil's dumping margin in the final results of review.

Department's Position: We agree with Farberware and have included

these sales in our calculations.

Comment 5: Farberware argues that the Department treated U.S.

direct selling expenses, expressed as ``DIRECTP'' in the computer

program, incorrectly by deducting DIRECTP from FMV instead of adding it

to FMV.

Farberware states that the Department's standard practice in

purchase price comparisons is to add U.S. direct selling expenses to

FMV.

Department's Position: We agree with Farberware. The revised

computer program instructions have corrected this clerical error. In

these final results, we added U.S. circumstance-of-sale adjustments to

FMV, as is our standard practice in purchase price comparisons.

Comment 6: Farberware maintains that the Department failed to

deduct the direct selling expenses of ``letter of credit advice.''

expressed as ``LCADV''in the computer program, and ``marine insurance

expense,'' expressed as ``MARINST'' in the computer program, from the

net prices used in the sales below cost test. Farberware states that

such a deduction should be made because the selling, general, and

administrative expenses reported by Namil and included in our sales

below cost test were net of all direct selling expenses.

Department's Position: We agree with Farberware. In our final

results, we have deducted letter of credit and marine insurance

expenses from the net prices used in the sales below cost test.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have determined that a dumping margin

exists for the period as follows:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

Namil Metal Co., Ltd................... 1/1/90-12/31/90 1.06

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

The Department shall instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences

between the United States price and FMV may vary from the percentage

stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions

directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of these final results of administrative review for

all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or with drawn from

warehouse, for consumption, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the

Tariff Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate

determined above;

(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 less than fair value (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 rates will be the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV

investigation, as discussed below.

On May 25, 1993, the United States Court of International Trade

(CIT), 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 a company is assigned an ``all

others'' rate, that rate can only be changed through an administrative

review. The Department has determined that in order to implement these

decisions, it is appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from

the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for the correction of

clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed

by antidumping duty orders for 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 8.10

percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the final notice of the

LTFV investigation by the Department (52 FR 2139, January 20, 1987).

Article VI, paragraph 5 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade provides that ``[n]o product * * * shall be subject to both

antidumping and countervailing duties to compensate for the same

situation of dumping and export subsidization.'' This provision is

implemented by section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act. Since

antidumping duties cannot be assessed on the portion of the margin

attributable to export subsidies, we will instruct the Customs Service

to subtract the level of export subsidies as determined in Certain

Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic of Korea; Countervailing

Duty Order, 52 FR 2140 (January 20, 1987), which is 0.78 percent ad

volorem, from the dumping margin for assessment and cash deposit

purposes. There have been no reviews conducted since the publication of

the countervailing duty order.

This notice also serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification

of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice is 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 28, 1994.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-5184 Filed 3-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P-M