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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-583-810]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by a petitioner, 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 21 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States for the period September 1, 1993, through August 31,

1994. The review indicates the existence of margins for the firms.

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

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference

between United States price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 2995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department

[[Page 44838]]

of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

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

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the

Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping

duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). The

Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request

Administrative Review'' on September 2, 1994 (59 FR 45664). The

petitioner, Consolidated International Automotive, Inc. (Consolidated),

requested that we conduct an administrative review for the period

September 1, 1993, through August 31, 1994. We published a notice of

``Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review'' on October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51939), and sent questionnaires to

the following firms: Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd. (Anmax), Buxton

International Corporation (Buxton), Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co.,

Everspring Plastic Corp. (Everspring), Gingen Metal Corp. (Gingen),

Goldwinate Associates, Inc. (Goldwinate), Gourmet Equipment Corporation

(Gourmet), Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd. (Hwen), Kwan How Enterprises

Co., Ltd. (Kwan How), Kwan Ta Enterprises Co. Ltd. (Kwan Ta), Kuang

Hong Industries, Ltd. (Kuang), Multigrand Industries Inc. (Multigrand),

San Chien Electric Industrial Works, Ltd. (San Chien), San Shing

Hardware Works Co., Ltd. (San Shing), Transcend International Co.

(Transcend), Trade Union International Inc./Top Line (Top Line),

Uniauto, Inc. (Uniauto) and Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company,

Inc. (Wing). Only Gourmet and Buxton responded to the questionnaire.

A review was also initiated on Chu Fong Metallic Industrial

Corporation. However, an address could not be determined for Chu Fong

Metallic Industrial Corporation. Questionnaires that were sent to Wing,

Hwen, Kwan How, Kwan Ta, and Kuang Hong were returned as undeliverable.

These firms will receive the ``all others'' rate established in the

less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.

The Department has now conducted the administrative review in

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

Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of one-piece and two-

piece chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, 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) but not more than one

inch (25.4 mm), plus or minus \1/16\ of an inch (1.59 mm). 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

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading

7318.16.00.10. 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)

The Department sent questionnaires to, but received no responses

from the following firms: Anmax, Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co.,

Everspring, Gingen, Goldwinate, Multigrand, San Chien, San Shing,

Transcend, Top Line, and Uniauto. 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.

The Department also sent questionnaires to Gourmet and Buxton who

provided us with responses to our questionnaires. However, the

Department was unable to reconcile the data Gourmet and Buxton

submitted in their responses to our questionnaire with their audited

financial statements (see verification reports for Buxton and Gourmet,

July 21, 1995). 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. Internal documents which have not

been audited and are not used for the preparation of the financial

statements or for any purpose other than internal deliberations of the

company does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in

the documents (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 and thus

unverifiable, we have determined to apply BIA to Gourmet and Buxton.

Because these firms cooperated with our request for information, 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.

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 original 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.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period September 1, 1993, through

August 31, 1994:

[[Page 44839]]

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

Percent

Manufacturer/exporter margin

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

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

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

Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co................................ 10.67

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

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

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

Everspring Corporation....................................... 10.67

Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd.................................... 10.67

Everspring Plastic Corp...................................... 10.67

Gingen Metal Corp............................................ 10.67

Goldwinate Associates, Inc................................... 10.67

Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd............................... 6.93

Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd................................ 6.93

Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd................................. 6.93

Kuang Hong Industries Ltd.................................... 6.93

Multigrand Industries Inc.................................... 10.67

San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd............................ 10.67

Trade Union International Inc./Top Line...................... 10.67

Uniauto, Inc................................................. 10.67

Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company................... 6.93

Chu Fong Metallic Industrial 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 on

each manufacturer/exporter 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 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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous

review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 6.93

percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.

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 the 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 notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to parties

subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to

comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable

violation.

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: August 4, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-21432 Filed 8-28-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M