Steel Jacks From Canada; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-006]

Steel Jacks From Canada; 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: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the antidumping finding on steel jacks from

Canada. The review covers two manufacturer/exporters of this

merchandise to the United States, New-Form Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

(NFM) and Seeburn Metal Products (Seeburn). The period covered is

September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994. The review indicates the

existence of dumping margins for this period.

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested

to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,

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-

0665 or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 17, 1966, the Treasury Department published in the Federal

Register (31 FR 7485) the antidumping finding on steel jacks from

Canada. Based on a timely request for review, we initiated an

administrative review of two firms, NFM and Seeburn, on November 14,

1994 (59 F.R. 56549), for the 1993-1994 period of review (POR), in

accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.22(c). The Department is now conducting

this administrative 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 in reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are multi-purpose hand-operated

heavy-duty steel jacks, used for lifting, pulling, and pushing,

measuring from 36 inches to 64 inches high, assembled, semi-assembled

and unassembled, including jack parts, from Canada. The merchandise is

currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 8425.49.00. The HTS numbers are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

This review covers two manufacturer/exporters, NFM and Seeburn. The

POR is September 1, 1993, through August 31, 1994.

Seeburn

On February 3, 1995, the Department determined that the products

imported by Seeburn were automobile tire jacks outside the scope of the

antidumping finding on steel jacks from Canada. Therefore, because

Seeburn had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR and

Seeburn has never before been reviewed, we are assigning Seeburn the

``all others'' rate.

United States Price (USP)

Because NFM sold all its merchandise to unrelated U.S. customers

prior to importation, we based USP on purchase price in accordance with

section 772(b) of the Act. We calculated purchase price based on prices

that were either F.O.B. or delivered to the customers' premises. In

accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we adjusted USP for

discounts, brokerage and handling, foreign and U.S. inland freight, and

customs duty,

[[Page 53585]]

where applicable. Since NFM did not report customs duty for U.S. sales

which were delivered to customers' premises, the Department used the

Customs duty rate applicable for this merchandise.

We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as

outlined in Silicomanganese From Venezuela; Preliminary Determination

of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 F.R. 31204 (June 17, 1994)

(Silicomanganese).

No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value (FMV)

Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third-

country sales, we determined that NFM's home market was viable in

accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.48. Therefore, in accordance with

section 773 of the Act, we compared U.S. sales of subject merchandise

with sales of such or similar merchandise in the home market. We

calculated FMV using monthly weighted-average prices of sales of

identical jacks.

FMV was based on packed, delivered home market prices, with

deductions for discounts, foreign inland freight and insurance, home

market credit expenses, rebates, and home market packing, in accordance

with Section 773(a)(1) and (a)(4) of the Act. In accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Act, we added U.S. packing, credit,

warehousing, and commissions to FMV. We did not offset U.S. commissions

by deducting home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of

U.S. commissions, as we normally do pursuant to section 353.56(b)(1) of

the Department's regulations, because the respondent's claimed indirect

selling expenses were calculated using unsupported estimates.

We included in FMV the amount of value-added taxes collected in the

home market, in accordance with our practice as outlined in

Silicomanganese. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily

determine that the following dumping margins exist for the POR:

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

Margin

Review period Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

9/1/93-8/31/94....................... NFM................... 28.49

Seeburn............... * 28.35

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

* No shipments or sales subject to this review; because this firm has

never been reviewed, rate is the all others rate explained in (4)

below.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of

publication of this notice. Any hearing will be held 44 days after the

date of publication or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties

may submit case briefs within 30 days of the publication date of this

notice. Rebuttal briefs, 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 a notice of the final results of this

administrative review, which will include the results of its analyses

of issues raised in any such case briefs or at a hearing.

The following deposit requirements shall be effective for all

shipments of the subject merchandise that are 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, and will remain in effect until publication of

the final results of the next administrative review:

(1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies shall be the

rates established in the final results of this review;

(2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed

above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be their previously

established company-specific rate published for the most recent period;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, prior

reviews, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate shall be the rate

established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the

merchandise;

(4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered

in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all

others'' rate established in the first review conducted by the the

Department in which an ``all others'' rate was established, as

discussed below.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and

Federal Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States,

822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), decided that once an ``all others'' rate

is established for a company it 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

correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in

proceedings governed by antidumping duty orders.

In proceedings governed by antidumping findings, unless we are able

to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury LTFV

investigation, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to

adopt the ``all others'' rate established in the first final results of

administrative review published by the Department (or that rate as

amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation)

for the purposes of establishing cash deposit rates in all current and

future administrative reviews.

Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty finding

and we are unable to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the

Department of Treasury LTFV investigation, the Department has

determined to apply the ``all others'' rate of 28.35 percent

established in the first final results published by the Department (52

F.R. 32957, September 1, 1987).

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 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.

This administrative review and this 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: September 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-25609 Filed 10-13-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P