Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Disposable Pocket Lighters From the People's Republic of China

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-834]

Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Disposable

Pocket Lighters From the People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Anne Osgood or Cynthia

Thirumalai, Office of Countervailing Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20230; telephone (202) 482-0167 or 482-4087, respectively.

Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances

On December 5, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

preliminarily determined that disposable pocket lighters from the

People's Republic of China (PRC) are [[Page 437]] being, or are likely

to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (59 FR 64191,

December 13, 1994). On November 23, 1994, petitioner alleged that there

is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances

exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise. In accordance

with 19 CFR 353.16(b)(2)(ii), since this allegation was filed later

than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary

determination, we must issue our preliminary critical circumstances

determination not later than 30 days after the allegation was

submitted.

Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),

provides that the Department will determine that there is a reasonable

basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist if:

(A) (i) there is a history of dumping in the United States or

elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of

the investigation, or

(ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was

imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the

merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its

fair value, and

(B) there have been massive imports of the class or kind of

merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively

short period.

History of Dumping

In this investigation, the first criterion of analysis is addressed

in petitioner's May 9, 1994, submission. Exhibit 30 to the petition

provides documentation indicating that the European Community imposed

antidumping duties on such or similar merchandise produced and exported

from the PRC in November 1991. Therefore, petitioner has established

that there is a history of dumping elsewhere of such lighters by PRC

producers/exporters.

Importer Knowledge

With respect to the alternative first criterion, we have

consistently determined that preliminary antidumping duty margins in

excess of 25 percent on U.S. purchase price sales are sufficient to

impute importer knowledge of sales at less than fair value. See, Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Metal from

China (56 FR 18570, April 23, 1991) and Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia (57 FR

38465, August 25, 1992). In this investigation, China National Overseas

Trading Corporation (Ningbo)(``COTCO''), Guangdong Light Industrial

Products Import & Export Corporation (``GLIP''), PolyCity Industrial

Ltd. (``PolyCity''), and all non-responding companies received

preliminary antidumping duty margins in excess of 25 percent.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine that importers either knew or

should have known that such exporters were selling disposable pocket

lighters at less than fair value.

Massive Imports

Because we have preliminarily found that the first statutory

criterion is met for finding critical circumstances in that there is a

history of dumping of the subject merchandise and, alternatively, there

is actual or imputed importer knowledge of sales at less than fair

value for certain companies, we must consider the second statutory

criterion: whether imports of the merchandise have been massive over a

relatively short period.

According to 19 CFR 353.16(f) and 353.16(g), we consider the

following to determine whether imports have been massive over a

relatively short period of time: 1) volume and value of the imports; 2)

seasonal trends (if applicable); and 3) the share of domestic

consumption accounted for by the imports.

When examining volume and value data, the Department typically

compares the export volume for equal periods immediately preceding and

following the filing of the petition. Under 19 CFR 353.16(f)(2), unless

the imports in the comparison period have increased by at least 15

percent over the imports during the base period, we will not consider

the imports to have been ``massive.''

To determine whether there have been massive imports over a

relatively short period of time, the Department examines shipment

information submitted by the respondent or import statistics when

respondent-specific shipment information is not available.

On December 9, 1994, the Department sent respondents requests for

information regarding shipments of disposable pocket lighters for the

period January 1992 to December 1994. We received the requested

information filed in proper form on December 19, 1994, for COTCO, GLIP,

Gao Yao (HK) Hua Fa Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Gao Yao''), and PolyCity.

For these responding companies, we used company-specific shipment data

in this investigation and the related analysis. Cli-Claque Company,

Ltd. (``Cli-Claque'') did not submit information for this preliminary

critical circumstances determination.

To determine whether or not imports of disposable pocket lighters

have been massive over a relatively short period, we compared each

respondent's export volume for the seven months subsequent to the

filing of the petition (May through November 1994) to that during the

seven months prior to the filing of the petition (October 1993 through

April 1994). This period was selected based on the Department's

practice of using the longest period for which information is available

from the month that the petition was submitted through the effective

date of the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value,

which in this investigation was December 5, 1994. See Preliminary

Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances; Silicon Carbide

From the People's Republic of China (59 FR 16795, April 8, 1994). We

were unable to consider the share of domestic consumption accounted for

by the imports, pursuant to 353.16(f)(1)(iii), because the available

data did not permit such a post-filing analysis. In addition, we found

no evidence of seasonality, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.16(f)(i)(ii), with

respect to PRC exports of disposable pocket lighters to the United

States.

Respondents have argued that any increases in PRC lighter imports

after the filing of the petition were in anticipation of the Consumer

Product Safety Commission child-proof lighter requirements due to

become effective on July 12, 1994. (See Safety Standard for Cigarette

Lighters (58 FR 37557, July 12, 1993).) The evidence on the record at

this time is insufficient to support the legal and factual bases for

this argument. We will address this argument further in our final

determination.

Based on the responding companies' shipment information, we

preliminarily find that imports of disposable pocket lighters from the

PRC have been massive over a relatively short period for COTCO. We

preliminarily find that imports were not massive with respect to Gao

Yao, GLIP, and PolyCity. (See business proprietary memorandum from team

to file, dated December 23, 1994.)

Therefore, because there is a history of dumping of such or similar

merchandise, and, alternatively, importers knew or should have known

that the exporter was selling the merchandise at less than its fair

value, and imports of disposable pocket lighters have been massive over

a relatively short period of time, we preliminarily determine that

there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical

circumstances exist with respect to imports of disposable pocket

lighters from COTCO. Because imports from Gao Yao, GLIP and PolyCity

have not been massive, we preliminarily [[Page 438]] determine that

there is not a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical

circumstances exist with respect to imports of disposable pocket

lighters from these three companies. In addition, with respect to Cli-

Claque, and all non-responding producers/exporters of disposable pocket

lighters from the PRC, we preliminarily determine, as best information

available, that critical circumstances exist.

We will make a final determination concerning critical

circumstances when we make our final determination of sales at less

than fair value in this investigation.

This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the

Act and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).

Dated: December 23, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-161 Filed 1-3-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P