Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-580-601]

Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from Farberware, Inc. (the

petitioner), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting

administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea. This notice of

the preliminary results covers three consecutive review periods for

January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991, January 1, 1992 through

December 31, 1992, and January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. The

1991 and 1992 reviews cover two manufacturers/exporters, Namil Metal

Company (Namil) and Daelim Trading Company, Ltd. (Daelim). The 1993

review covers one manufacturer/exporter, Daelim. The reviews indicate

the existence of dumping margins during these periods.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties equal

to the difference between the United States price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy S. Wei or Zev Primor, 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

The Department published an antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea on January 20,

1987 (52 FR 2139). The Department published notices of ``Opportunity To

Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for

the 1991 review period (56 FR 66846, December 26, 1991), for the 1992

review period (58 FR 4148, January 13, 1993), and for the 1993 review

period (59 FR 564, January 5, 1994). On January 31, 1991, the

petitioner requested that the Department conduct an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel cooking

ware from the Republic of Korea for two manufacturers/exporters,

covering the period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. We

initiated the 1991 review on February 24, 1992 (57 FR 6314). On January

27, 1993, the petitioner requested that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain

stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of Korea for two

manufacturers/exporters, covering the period January 1, 1992 through

December 31, 1992. We initiated the 1992 review on March 8, 1993 (58 FR

12931). On January 31, 1994, the petitioner requested that the

Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on certain stainless steel cooking ware from the Republic of

Korea for one manufacturer/exporter, covering the period January 1,

1993 through December 31, 1993. We initiated the 1993 review on

February 17, 1994 (59 FR 7979).

The Department is now conducting reviews for these periods in

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

Act).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by these administrative reviews are certain

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

review periods, 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 number is provided for convenience and

Customs' purposes. The written description remains dispositive as to

the scope of the product coverage.

The review periods (POR) are January 1, 1991 through December 31,

1991, January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, and January 1, 1993

through December 31, 1993, respectively. The 1991 and 1992 reviews

cover two companies, Namil and Daelim. The 1993 review covers one

company, Daelim.

Use of Best Information Available

Namil

For the 1991 review, in filing its questionnaire response, Namil

failed to submit computer tapes of all sales data in a timely manner.

Because this data was provided after the due date, the Department

rejected this additional submission in accordance with 19 CFR

353.31(b)(2). Therefore, in the case of Namil, we have calculated a

dumping margin using the best information available (BIA), in

accordance with section 776(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.37(b).

In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-

tiered methodology. The Department assigns lower margins to those

respondents who cooperate in a review (tier two), and margins based on

more adverse assumptions for those respondents who do not cooperate in

the review, or who significantly impede the proceeding (tier one)(see

Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed.Cir.,

June 22, 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 1188, cert. denied, 1995 U.S. Lexis 100

(1995) (Allied-Signal)).

When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for

information, but fails to provide the information requested in a timely

manner or in the form requested, we assign the company second-tier BIA,

which is the higher of (1) the firm's

[[Page 34515]]

highest rate (including the ``all others'' rate) for the same class or

kind of merchandise from the same country from a prior administrative

review or, if the firm has never before been investigated or reviewed,

the ``all others'' rate from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)

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

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

origin (see Allied-Signal, 28 F.3d at 1189, 1190 n.2).

Because Namil submitted the narrative portion of the questionnaire

response in a timely manner, we are using cooperative BIA as the basis

for Namil's margin for the 1991 review. For Namil, we have used, as

BIA, 11.22 percent, which is the highest rate calculated in this

review.

For the 1992 review, Namil failed to respond to the Department's

questionnaire. When a company refuses to cooperate with the Department,

or otherwise significantly impedes the Department's proceedings, it

assigns that company first-tier BIA, which is 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 LTFV investigation or

a prior administrative review; or (2) the highest calculated rate found

in the present administrative review for any firm for the same class or

kind of merchandise from the same country of origin (Id.).

We, therefore, are using uncooperative BIA as the basis for Namil's

margin in the 1992 review. For Namil, we have used, as BIA, 31.23

percent, which is the highest rate calculated for any firm in the first

review (see Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic of

Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR

9560, February 22, 1993).

Daelim

Daelim responded to the Department's questionnaires. However, at

verification for the 1991 review, we discovered some U.S. sales, with

either sale dates or U.S. entry dates during the POR, which Daelim had

failed to report in its original and supplemental questionnaire

responses. The submission of U.S. sales is a critical element in our

calculation of the dumping margin. Failure to provide all of the U.S.

sales is a serious omission, which can cause our dumping margin to be

distorted. This failure of Daelim to fully respond to the Department's

questionnaire in a timely manner has led the Department to apply

partial BIA to its U.S. sales in accordance with section 776(c). In

applying partial BIA to Daelim's U.S. sales, we used to these

unreported U.S. sales the highest rate found for any firm for the same

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

investigation or a prior administrative review. We have applied as BIA

for these unreported sales a rate of 31.23 percent, which was the

highest rate calculated for any firm in the first review (Id.).

United States Price

In calculating USP for Daelim for each review, the Department used

purchase price, as defined in section 772 of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to importation

and exporter's sales price was not otherwise indicated. Purchase price

was based on the packed, FOB price to unrelated purchasers in the

United States. For each review, we made deductions from the unit price,

where applicable, for terminal handling charges, brokerage charges,

inland freight, wharfage, container freight station (CFS) charges,

export license recommendation fees, outer (shipment) packaging, and

miscellaneous, bank-related expenses. We made an addition to Daelim's

USP for duty drawback in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.

In the 1991 review, Daelim claimed that it incurred warranty

expenses to one U.S. customer on sales which occurred prior to the POR.

At verification, we discovered that Daelim's warranty expenses were

actually a recision of a price increase to the U.S. customer. Daelim's

invoices reported the lower price that the U.S. customer had actually

paid for the merchandise. However, in its response to the Department's

questionnaire, Daelim reported the price to the customer including the

price increase. Consequently, we used the actual lower price charged by

Daelim to that customer, rather than the prices for U.S. sales reported

by Daelim on its computer tape. Because some selling expenses were

based on sales value, we made additional adjustments to Daelim's

reported U.S. brokerage expense and export license recommendation fee

for sales to the one U.S. customer. We did not make a warranty expense

adjustment to the USP of the other U.S. customers. Daelim did not incur

any warranty expenses during the 1992 and 1993 PORs.

For those U.S. sales which Daelim failed to report prior to

verification for the 1991 review with either sale dates or entry dates

during the POR, we applied a BIA rate of 31.23 percent.

No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

For the purposes of the preliminary reviews, we determined that,

due to the nature of the merchandise under review, none of the cooking

ware sold in the United States could reasonably be compared to cooking

ware sold in the home market. This is due to the fact that the majority

of the cooking ware sold in the United States consisted of semi-

finished products for further manufacturing in the United States,

whereas the cooking ware sold in the home market consisted of finished

products. Under the Department's standard practice, we only compare

U.S. products with products that have a difference in variable cost of

manufacture (difmer) of less than 20 percent. Because products sold in

the home market did not pass the Department's difmer test, we did not

use the home market sales as a basis for FMV. In accordance with

section 773(a)(2) of the Act, we calculated FMV based on constructed

value of the models sold in the United States for the 1991, 1992, and

1993 reviews (see Large Power Transformers from Japan; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 45767, DOC Position to

Comment 1, October 5, 1992, and High Information Content Flat Panel

Displays and Display Glass Therefore from Japan; Final Determination;

Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 FR

32376, 32388, DOC Position to Hosiden Comment 1, July 16, 1991).

In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, the constructed value

of the models sold in the United States included materials,

fabrication, general expenses, profit, and packing. As a result of our

verification findings for the 1991 review, we recalculated Daelim's

1991 reported costs for direct labor, variable overhead, interest

expense, profit, direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses,

imputed credit, and general and administrative expenses for the purpose

of deriving constructed value. We multiplied each by a factor based on

our findings during the verification of Daelim's reported cost data.

As a result, we recalculated total cost of manufacturing, total

cost of production, and total constructed value based on the changes to

Daelim's reported costs for the 1991 review. Revised total cost of

manufacturing equalled the sum of revised direct labor, revised

variable overhead, fixed overhead, and direct material costs.

[[Page 34516]]

Revised total cost of production equalled the sum of revised total cost

of manufacturing, revised direct selling expense, revised indirect

selling expense, revised imputed credit expense, revised general and

administrative expense, and revised interest expense. Revised total

constructed value equalled the sum of revised total cost of production

and revised profit.

As a result of our verification findings for the 1992 and 1993

reviews, we recalculated Daelim's reported costs for the respective

period for general and administrative expenses, interest, and profit

for the purpose of deriving constructed value, in accordance with

section 773(e) of the Act. As a result, we recalculated total cost of

production and total constructed value based on the changes to Daelim's

reported costs for the 1992 and 1993 reviews. Revised total cost of

production equalled the sum of total cost of manufacturing and total

general expenses, which included revised general and administrative

expenses, revised interest expenses, and selling expenses. Revised

total constructed value equalled the sum of revised total cost of

production and revised profit. In the 1993 review, in accordance with

19 CFR 353.56 (b)(1), we offset commissions paid in the U.S. market

with indirect selling expenses from the home market since no

commissions were paid in the home market.

In accordance with section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Act, we used the

statutory minima of 8 percent for profit and 10 percent for general

expenses for each review since reported profits and general expenses

were less than the statutory minima for each review.

Preliminary Results

As a result of our reviews, we preliminarily determine the dumping

margins to be:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter Time Period (percent)

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

Namil Metal Company, Ltd............... 1/1/91-12/31/91 11.22

Daelim Trading Company, Ltd............ 1/1/91-12/31/91 11.22

Namil Metal Company, Ltd............... 1/1/92-12/31/92 31.23

Daelim Trading Company, Ltd............ 1/1/92-12/31/92 3.43

Daelim Trading Company, Ltd............ 1/1/93-12/31/93 0.14

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

Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of

publication of this notice and any interested party may request a

hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will

be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written

comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the

date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final

results of these administrative reviews, which will include the results

of its analysis of issues raised in any such briefs or comments.

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences

between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews

for all shipments of certain stainless steel cooking ware from the

Republic of Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption

on or after the publication date of the final results of these

administrative reviews, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) the cash deposit rates for Namil will be that margin established in

the final results of these reviews; (2) if Daelim's latest period of

review rate remains de minimis for the final results, Customs will

require a cash deposit of zero percent; (3) for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered in these reviews but covered in

the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit

will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter

received a company-specific rate; (4) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in these reviews, or the original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these reviews,

or the LTFV investigation; and (5) if neither the exporter nor the

manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous reviews, the

cash deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the ``all others'' rate

established in the LTFV investigation (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 Act. Since antidumping

duties cannot be assessed on the portion of the margin attributable to

export subsidies, there is no reason to require a cash deposit or a

bond for that amount. Accordingly, before completion of the final

results of these administrative reviews, the level of export subsidies

as determined in Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic

of Korea; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 51 FR

42867 (November 26, 1986), which is 0.71 percent ad valorem, will be

subtracted from the dumping margin for cash deposit purposes. There

have been no reviews conducted since the publication of the

countervailing duty order.

This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate

regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation

of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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.

These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: June 26, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-16305 Filed 6-30-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P