Shop Towels From Bangladesh; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-538-802]

Shop Towels From Bangladesh; 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 from the petitioner, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on shop towels from Bangladesh. The review

covers 6 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the

United States. The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1993, through

February 28, 1994.

We have preliminarily determined that one exporter made no

shipments during the POR and that the use of best information available

(BIA) is appropriate for two exporters. We have also preliminarily

determined that sales by the remaining exporters have been made below

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

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

instruct U.S. 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: September 21 ,1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Rosenbaum, Davina Hashmi or

Michael Rill, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482-4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 20, 1992, the Department published in the Federal Register

(57 FR 9688) the antidumping duty order on shop towels from Bangladesh.

On March 4, 1994, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review'' (59 FR 10368) of this antidumping

duty order for the period March 1, 1993, through February 28, 1994. On

March 15, 1994, the petitioner, Milliken & Company, requested an

administrative review for six manufacturers/exporters of shop towels

from Bangladesh.

We published a notice of initiation of the review on April 15, 1994

(59 FR 18099). The Department is now conducting this review in

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

Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the

Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this administrative review is shop towels.

Shop towels are absorbent industrial wiping cloths made from a loosely

woven fabric. The fabric may be either 100 percent cotton or a blend of

materials. Shop towels are currently classifiable under item numbers

6307.10.2005 and 6307.10.2015 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS).

Although HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding

remains dispositive.

United States Price

In calculating USP, the Department used purchase price as defined

in section 772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold

to unrelated U.S. purchasers prior to importation and the exporter's

sales price (ESP) methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.

Purchase price was based on ex-factory, f.o.b., c.i.f., or c&f

prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States. We made

adjustments, where applicable, for ocean freight, insurance, and

forwarding charges in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.

No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

We calculated FMV based on constructed value (CV) in accordance

with section 773(e) of the Act, because none of the respondents sold

such or similar merchandise in the home market or in any third-country

market during the POR. The CV includes the cost of materials and

fabrication of the merchandise exported to the United States, plus

general expenses, profit and packing. To calculate CV we used: (1)

Actual general expenses, or the statutory minimum of 10 percent of

materials and fabrication, whichever was greater; (2) profit, as

calculated by using the statutory minimum of 8 percent of materials,

fabrication costs and general expenses; and (3) packing costs for

[[Page 48971]]

merchandise exported to the United States. Because the only general

expenses incurred were those incurred for U.S. sales, we used these

general expenses in our calculation of CV. We made no adjustments.

Currency Conversion

In our analysis, we normally make currency conversions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.60 using the exchange rates certified by the

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Since the Federal Reserve Bank of New

York does not provide exchange rate information for Bangladesh, we used

the average monthly exchange rates published in the International

Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics.

Best Information Available

In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have preliminarily

determined that the use of BIA is appropriate for two companies that

did not submit timely or complete responses to the questionnaire.

Section 776(c) of the Act states that the Department shall use BIA

wherever a company refuses or is unable to produce information in a

timely manner and in the form required, or significantly impedes an

administrative review.

In determining what to use as BIA, section 353.37(b) of the

Department's regulations provides that the Department may take into

account whether a party refuses to provide requested information or

impedes a proceeding. The Department employs a two-tiered methodology

that takes into account the degree of cooperation provided by a

respondent.

In the case of respondents who refuse to provide information

requested in a timely manner, or who otherwise significantly impede the

review, we use 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 less-

than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior administrative reviews;

or (2) the highest calculated rate in the current review for any firm.

When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for

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

manner or in the form requested, we use as BIA the higher of (1) the

highest rate (including the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the

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

from either the LTFV investigation or a prior administrative review; or

(2) the highest calculated rate in the current review for any firm for

the class or kind of merchandise from the same country (see Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Revocation in

Part of an Antidumping Duty Order, Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al., 58 FR

39729 (July 26, 1993)). See also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United

States, 996 F.2d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Krupp Stahl AG et al v. United

States, 822 F. Supp 789 (CIT May 26, 1993).

In our original questionnaire we stated that companies must report

all entries of purchase price sales of subject merchandise during the

POR. In Khaled Textiles Mills Ltd. (Khaled)'s initial response to our

questionnaire, it indicated that it did not produce shop towels during

the review period and therefore was not interested in participating in

this review. Since Khaled did not indicate in its submission that it

had no shipments during the review period we sent a letter to Khaled in

order to clarify its statement. Khaled responded by indicating that it

did ship shop towels to the United States during the period of review,

from the prior year's production. We then sent Khaled a letter

requiring it to respond completely to our original questionnaire. After

several extensions, Khaled responded to our questionnaire. Khaled

indicated that it had already answered the narrative portion of the

questionnaire in the first administrative review and was only

submitting additional sales data for the second review period. However,

the Department does not accept questionnaire responses submitted in

previous reviews because the Department views each review as a distinct

and separate proceeding. See Barium Chloride from the People's Republic

of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 54 FR 52

(January 3, 1989).

The information that Khaled did submit was highly deficient. Khaled

submitted only the invoice number, bill of lading number and date,

invoice value, terms of sale, freight expenses and weight for each

shipment. Without a narrative response, we do not know if Khaled

included all relevant expenses. In addition, the constructed value

information Khaled submitted could not be used since Khaled calculated

one constructed value for both shop towels and non-subject merchandise,

and it was not calculated on a per-unit basis. Given the deficiencies

of Khaled's response, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we

have determined that the use of BIA is appropriate. Because Khaled

attempted to provide the necessary information to the Department in a

timely manner, we have considered Khaled to be a cooperative

respondent. Accordingly, we have preliminarily assigned Khaled a margin

of 9.61 percent, which is the highest rate ever applicable for Khaled.

In Sonar's initial response to our questionnaire, it indicated that

it was no longer producing shop towels and had temporarily closed its

factory. Sonar further stated that it did not have competent staff to

respond to the questionnaire. Since Sonar did not indicate that it had

no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review, we

sent a letter to Sonar in order to clarify its statement. Sonar

responded by indicating that it did ship subject merchandise to the

United States during the POR. In this letter it provided the commercial

invoice number, the bill of lading number, the invoice value and ocean

freight. We then sent another letter requesting that it respond fully

to the questionnaire. Sonar did not submit a response until four days

after the extended due date. We have returned Sonar's late submission

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.31(b)(2)(1994). Since Sonar did not

submit a timely response to the questionnaire, in accordance with

section 776(c) of the Act, we have determined that the use of BIA is

appropriate for Sonar, and we have considered Sonar to be an

uncooperative respondent. Accordingly, we have preliminarily assigned

Sonar a margin of 42.31 percent, which is the highest rate in the LTFV

investigation and the highest rate ever found in this proceeding.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

following margins exist for the period March 1, 1993, through February

28, 1994:

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

Manufacturer/exporter Margin(percent)

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

Eagle Star Mills Ltd................................... \1\42.31

Greyfab (Bangladesh) Ltd............................... 0.00

Hashem International................................... 0.00

Khaled Textile Mills Ltd............................... 9.61

Shabnam Textiles....................................... 1.74

Sonar Cotton Mills (Bangladesh) Ltd.................... 42.31

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

\1\No shipments or sales subject to this review; rate is from LTFV

investigation.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated

above. Upon completion of the review the Department will issue

appraisement

[[Page 48972]]

instructions concerning all respondents directly to the 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 by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those rates established in the final results of the

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 prior 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 or the

original investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 4.60 percent, the

``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (57 FR 3996).

These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of

the final results of the next administrative review.

Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date

of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days

of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held as

early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days after

the date of publication or the first work day 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 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 this

administrative 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 administrative review 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(c).

Dated: September 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-23488 Filed 9-20-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P