Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-570-803]

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without

Handles, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of the antidumping duty administrative

review of heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or

without handles, from the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: On April 5, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its

administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged

hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (HFHTs)

from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (61 FR 15218). This review

covers the period February 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary

results. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have

changed the results from those presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Maureen Flannery,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-

4733.

Applicable Statute and Regulations: Unless otherwise stated, all

citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the

Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department's regulations are to the current regulations, as amended by

the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on May 11,

1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 2, 1995, the Department published in the Federal

Register (60 FR 6524) a notice of opportunity to request administrative

reviews of these antidumping duty orders. On February 27, 1995, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), two resellers of the subject

merchandise to the United States, Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import &

Export Corporation (FMEC) and Shandong Machinery Import & Export

Corporation (SMC), requested that we conduct administrative reviews of

their exports of subject merchandise to the United States. On February

28, 1995, the petitioner, Woodings-Verona Tool Works, Inc., requested

that we conduct administrative reviews of SMC, FMEC, Henan Machinery

Import & Export Company (Henan), and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export

Company (Tianjin). We published the notice of initiation of these

antidumping duty administrative reviews on March 15, 1995 (60 FR

13955). We received no questionnaire responses from either Henan or

Tianjin. Therefore, we have based our analysis of these two companies

on facts otherwise available (FA). On April 5, 1996, the Department

published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the

administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on HFHTs from the

PRC (61 FR 15218). The Department is conducting these administrative

reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of HFHTs from the

PRC comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1)

hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) (hammers/

sledges); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges

(bars and wedges); (3) picks/mattocks; and (4) axes/adzes.

HFHTs include heads for drilling, hammers, sledges, axes, mauls,

picks, and mattocks, which may or may not be painted, which may or may

not be finished, or which may or may not be imported with handles;

assorted bar products and track tools including wrecking bars, digging

bars and tampers; and steel woodsplitting wedges. HFHTs are

manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to

required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final

shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product

shape and size. Depending on the product, finishing operations may

include shot-blasting, grinding, polishing and painting, and the

insertion of handles for handled products. HFHTs are currently provided

for under the following Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) subheadings:

8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically

excluded are hammers and sledges with heads 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds) in

weight and under, hoes and rakes, and bars 18 inches in length and

under. This review covers four exporters of HFHTs from the PRC. The

review period is February 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995.

Factor Valuations: Changes From the Preliminary Results

In the preliminary results, we valued factors of production based

on the year in which production occurred. We have not used that

methodology for the final results because it is inconsistent with our

standard practice. Our standard factors methodology, like our standard

constructed value methodology, is intended to reflect value during the

period of investigation (POI) or the POR. Thus, these methodologies

rely on costs during the POI or the POR. Therefore, for the final

results, we have valued the factors of production using surrogate

values for the review period.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received case briefs and rebuttal briefs from

petitioner and FMEC, SMC, and Tianjin.

Comment 1: Petitioner and respondents state that the Department

made errors in the inflation calculations for its factors of production

analysis.

Department's Position: We agree that we made a clerical error in

calculating the wholesale price index (WPI) inflator for the

preliminary results, and have made the necessary corrections for the

final results.

Comment 2: Respondents claim that the Department should not use the

WPI to derive 1993 and 1994 values for steel, iron straps and wood.

Respondents argue that the record shows no indication that steel prices

are tied to any inflation index, and that the Department's other 1994

factor values show that Indian import prices have actually fallen in

comparison with 1993 or even 1992 Indian import prices.

Further, respondents state, there is no ``secondary information''

on the record to support the use of the WPI. The respondents claim

that, if the Department relies on the 1993 Indian import statistics for

iron straps and wood, those values should be adjusted by the average

change in values from

[[Page 51270]]

1993 to 1994 for the other factor values, rather than by the WPI.

Petitioner argues that the WPI is the most appropriate inflation

measure because it reflects prices paid for inputs at the wholesale

level, where producers purchase them. Further, petitioner claims, it is

widely recognized that steel prices move with overall economic

activity; there is no evidence that the price of steel, iron straps or

wood move in step with the other factor inputs. Thus, petitioner

argues, the Department should not make the requested adjustment to its

preliminary results.

Department's Position: We disagree with respondents that steel

factor values for periods prior to the review period should not be

adjusted for inflation using the WPI. There is no record evidence to

support respondents' argument that the WPI inflator is arbitrary when

applied to steel. As we state in our factors analysis memo dated March

27, 1996, we judged the 1994 Indian import data for steel to be

unreliable, because it was based on a very small quantity of steel

imports; we also determined that the 1993 Indian import data for steel

was aberrational. Therefore, absent contemporaneous data and a more

product-specific inflation index, we have adjusted steel factor values

from periods prior to the period of review (POR) using the WPI, as we

have done in prior reviews of this order, and in numerous other non-

market economy (NME) cases. See, e.g., Bicycles From the People's

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, 60 FR 56567 (November 9, 1995) (Bicycles), and Certain Helical

Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results

of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 41994 (August 13, 1996)

(Lock Washers).

With respect to wood and iron straps, we have obtained surrogate

values corresponding with the POR for the final results. Therefore,

respondents' argument with respect to these inputs is moot.

Comment 3: Petitioner argues that the Department should use the

price quotations for special high quality steel bars that petitioner

obtained from three Indian steel producers and submitted for the

record, instead of the inflated 1992 Indian import statistics data

which the Department used in the preliminary results. Petitioner claims

that the data the Department relied upon are too broad, including steel

that does not meet the exacting requirements of HFHT production. As a

result, the average import values the Department used are too low, and

do not accurately reflect the value of the steel used in making hand

tools. Petitioner points out that the Department has used alternatives

such as specific price quotations in situations where import statistics

were found to be distortive or aberrational. Petitioner cites, for

example, the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Furfuryl Alcohol from the PRC, 60 FR 22544, 22548 (May 8, 1995)

(Furfuryl Alcohol) and the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Coumarin from the PRC, 59 FR 66895 (December 28, 1994)

(Coumarin). Petitioner further argues that, in the less-than-fair-value

(LTFV) investigation, the Department recognized that broad basket

categories comprising many different types and sizes of steel, such as

proposed by respondents, do not accurately reflect the prices of the

specific types of steel used to manufacture HFHTs. Final Determination

of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the PRC, 56 FR 241 (Jan. 3,

1991) (Final LTFV).

Respondents contend that the Department should use the information

contained in Statistics For Iron & Steel Industry in India, published

in 1994 by the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). Respondents

argue that this source provides data that are contemporaneous with the

review period, are specific to the thicknesses of steel bars used to

make the subject merchandise, and have been used by the Department in

other antidumping proceedings. See Drawer Slides from the People's

Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value, 60 FR 54472 (October 24, 1995) (Drawer Slides) and Bicycles.

Further, respondents contend, the SAIL data reflect prices that are

comparable to the prices the Chinese factories actually paid for steel.

Respondents argue that the price quotations supplied by petitioner

are not contemporaneous with the POR, and do not represent the type of

steel used in the Chinese manufacture of HFHTs. Respondents claim that

the specifications offered for the steel quotations are for a higher

quality steel than the Chinese HFHT factories actually use. Respondents

further contend that the price quotations are aberrational in terms of

ordinary steels, and are similar to the 1993 Indian import data that

the Department judged to be aberrational. See Memorandum to the File

for the 1993-1994 review, dated March 27, 1996.

Respondents argue that petitioner's price quotations are not

publicly available published data. Respondents assert that the

Department should use such unpublished, non-publicly available

information submitted by an interested party only as a last resort.

Petitioner disputes respondents' contention that the SAIL data is

representative of the type of steel used to make hand tools, stating

that it covers steel bars used in non-critical structural work instead

of the high quality bars used in HFHTs. Further, petitioner asserts,

respondents' data appears to cover steel with a wide range of carbon

content, which the Department found to be unacceptable in the LTFV

investigation.

Department's Position: We disagree with petitioner that we should

use its submitted price quotations, and with respondents that we should

use the SAIL data instead of the Indian import statistics we used in

the preliminary results. Our objective is to value the surrogate steel

at prices which most closely reflect the type of steel used by the PRC

producer. (Here, we have matched respondents' hot rolled C45 steel bars

with category number 7214.5 in the Indian import statistics, forged

bars and rods containing between 25 and 60 percent carbon.) We have

found that the chemical composition of the steel used is a more

important determinant of its end use than is size. See, e.g. Lock

Washers at 41997.

While the SAIL data submitted by respondents in this case is more

size-specific than the Indian import statistics we used in the

preliminary results, it is less specific as to grade and chemical

composition. The SAIL data presents average values for steel of unknown

grade and chemical composition. Also, in the final determination of

these orders, we rejected respondent's proposal of applying an average

rate comprising many different types and sizes of steel, because we

determined that using average values results in a less accurate

calculation. Final LTFV at 245.

Our use of SAIL data in Drawer Slides and Bicycles was based on our

finding that, although less contemporaneous than the other data on the

record, the SAIL data provided prices for steel that most closely

matched the specifications of the steel used in those particular cases.

See Drawer Slides at 54475, and Bicycles at 56573. However, in this

case, we find that the Indian import data more closely matches the

steel used to produce hand tools.

We rejected petitioner's submitted steel price quotations for

similar reasons. The price quotations are based on a higher quality

steel than what is actually used by the respondents in hand tool

production. Therefore, consistent with our practice, we find it

[[Page 51271]]

more appropriate to use the Indian import data. Although we used price

quotations in Furfuryl Alcohol and Coumarin, in those cases we found

the price quotations to be superior to the other available data.

Therefore, for the final results, we continue to use Indian import

statistics to value steel, because it is the most specific to the grade

and chemical composition of the type of steel used by respondents in

hand tool production.

Comment 4: Petitioner states that the Department should use factor

inputs to value wooden pallets, as the Department did in the previous

review. Although the necessary information to do this is not on the

record of this review, petitioner suggests that the Department value

the pallets using factor inputs derived from data submitted on the

public record in the preceding reviews, adjusted for inflation. If the

Department judges this approach to be inappropriate for this review,

petitioner requests that the Department collect the necessary

information on pallet inputs in all subsequent administrative reviews

of this order.

Respondents argue that, unlike in the prior review, the record in

this review is clear that the factories buy wooden pallets. Respondents

assert that there is no established Departmental practice or legal

authority for applying a factors methodology to all packing materials.

Respondents assert that the Department must consider the evidence on

the record that the factories do not make pallets and reject

petitioner's argument.

Department's Position: We agree with respondents. Unlike in the

prior review, the record of this review indicates that the Chinese

factories do not construct wooden packing pallets themselves, but

purchase them already constructed. Thus, using surrogate values for

complete pallets results in a more accurate calculation than valuing

the wood and nails separately. Moreover, the statute and the

Department's regulations do not require the Department to construct a

value for packing materials. For these reasons, we have continued to

value the cost of a complete pallet for the final results.

Comment 5: Respondents object to the Department's use of the

Economist Intelligence Unit's Investing, Licensing & Trading Conditions

Abroad (IL&T) data as the surrogate labor rate source, stating that

this source provides estimates based not on actual wage rates, but on

rates stipulated in various Indian laws. Respondents point out that the

Department rejected this data source in Bicycles.

Instead, respondents argue that the Department should use the data

contained in the publication, Foreign Labor Trends--India (FLTI),

prepared by the American Embassy in New Delhi, which provides 1992

Indian wage rates broken down into skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled

categories. As an alternative, respondents suggest that the Department

use the Yearbook of Labor Statistics (YLS), which the Department

recently used in Bicycles. Respondents state that, should the

Department use this source, SIC code 381 includes the manufacture of

hand tools. Since the YLS does not differentiate among skill levels,

respondents suggest a methodology for using the IL&T data as a

``scale'' to derive skill levels from the YLS data.

Respondents further comment that their suggested wage rates are

comparable to other surrogate rates used by the Department. Respondents

specifically point to the Indonesian wage rates the Department used in

Disposable Pocket Lighters from the People's Republic of China: Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value (Lighters), 60 FR 22359

(May 5, 1995) and Furfuryl Alcohol. Petitioner supports the

Department's continued use of the IL&T for valuing labor and challenges

respondents' argument in favor of the YLS data. Petitioner argues that

respondents have made no showing why SIC code 381 is the appropriate

code for the hand tool industry, and points out that, since YLS wage

rates vary greatly among SIC codes, choosing the correct code is

essential. Petitioner cautions that the Department should not

arbitrarily use a data source it has rejected as a ratio to apply to a

different information source, as respondents suggest.

Petitioner states that the fact that the alternative wage rates

suggested by respondents may be comparable to Indonesian wage rates

used by the Department in two other recent NME cases is irrelevant, as

the Department has selected India as the surrogate country for this

review.

Department's Position: We agree with respondents in part. As we

stated in Bicycles, the IL&T, which we used for the preliminary

results, provides estimates based not on actual wage rates, but on

rates stipulated in various Indian laws. See e.g., Memorandum to

Barbara R. Stafford, Factors Valuation Memo, Nov. 1, 1995, at 20

(public memo on file in B-099 of the Commerce Department). Therefore,

we have not used IL&T data for the final results. We recalculated labor

rates, using data from the YLS. Unlike the FLTI data that respondents

prefer, the YLS provides wage rates on an industry-specific basis. We

used the daily wage rate specified for SIC code 381, ``manufacture of

fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment,'' because

the description of the various industries this category covers was the

best match for the hand tool industry. The YLS does not provide wage

rates for different skill levels; we therefore applied the same rate to

all three skill levels reported by respondents. Having found the IL&T

data to be an inappropriate source for wage rates, it would be

inappropriate to use the IL&T data to differentiate among skill levels,

as respondent suggests. Because the YLS provides wage rates from 1990,

we inflated the data for the review period, using the consumer price

index, published in the International Monetary Fund's International

Financial Statistics.

We disagree with respondents that a comparison of their suggested

wage rates to Indonesian wage rates used by the Department in Lighters

and Furfuryl Alcohol is relevant, since those cases entail different

industries and a different surrogate country than does this review.

Comment 6: Respondents state that, consistent with past practice,

the Department should use the actual prices Chinese companies paid in

convertible currencies to market-economy suppliers. Respondents cite

Oscillating Ceiling Fans from the PRC, 56 FR 55271 (October 25, 1991)

(Fans), as an example of this practice. Respondents claim that the

HFHTs case is distinct from Coumarin, in which the Department qualified

this approach where inputs were ``purchased from market-economy

countries by trading companies for use by their suppliers.''

Respondents state that here, some steel inputs were imported by the

same Chinese company which sold the subject merchandise to the United

States, virtually nullifying the possibility of price manipulation.

Thus, respondents conclude, using these prices is the most accurate way

to value the inputs.

Petitioner points out that in the third review of HFHTs, the

Department considered and rejected Chinese import prices for steel, in

favor of surrogate country prices. Petitioner asserts that the

Department may use actual purchase prices in limited circumstances, if

the NME manufacturer purchases the inputs from a market economy

supplier and pays in convertible currency. These circumstances are not

met in this review, as the inputs were purchased from a market economy

country by a PRC trading company, which then transferred the inputs to

the PRC manufacturer.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioner. It is the

Department's

[[Page 51272]]

normal practice in NME cases to value the factors of production using

surrogate country input prices. The Department normally allows for the

valuation of inputs based on the actual purchase price of the input

only when the NME manufacturer purchases the inputs from a market

economy supplier and pays in a convertible currency. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from the

People's Republic of China, 59 FR 58818 (November 15, 1994)

(Saccharin), and Fans.

As we explained in Coumarin, this rule does not extend to inputs

purchased by a trading company who then resells the input to the

manufacturer. See Coumarin at 66900. The record of this review

demonstrates that respondents, not their supplier factories, imported

steel from a market economy source. Respondents then sold the steel to

the factories, who paid them in renminbi. Thus, the criteria

established in Fans and Saccharin for use of actual import prices to

value steel are not satisfied in this case.

Moreover, the respondents' claim with regard to nullification of

price manipulation is irrelevant. The rationale behind use of actual

import prices of the NME producer is that the producer's import prices

more accurately reflect its costs of the particular input. Fans at

55275. Respondents misconstrue this exception because they fail to

recognize that the focus of inquiry is the NME producer's costs, not

the costs of the NME trading company. The market-economy price paid by

the trading company does not represent the cost to the manufacturer,

and the trading company's price to the manufacturer is not a market-

economy price. Therefore, for these final results, we have used

surrogate values to value all steel inputs used in the production of

HFHTs.

Comment 7: The respondents assert that the Department's use of a

price reported in a December 1989 cable from the U.S. Embassy in India,

adjusted by the WPI, to value inland rail freight is less

contemporaneous than other rail freight data on the record, and is

unsupported by secondary data. Respondents argue that the information

in Doing Business in India, published by the Ministry of External

Affairs of the Government of India, is more current, is official

government data, and provides specific rates on a per-kilometer basis.

Petitioner objects to respondents' suggested alternative rail

freight rate. Petitioner points out that the data respondents submitted

consists of a single, average rate. This rate would distort freight

cost calculations by overstating the per-kilometer costs of long trips

and understating the per-kilometer costs of short trips. Petitioner

argues that because the rate is only one digit, it is inherently

imprecise. Further, its source is unknown. When selecting surrogate

data, petitioner asserts, the primary focus is on the accuracy and

specificity of the data; the fact that respondents' data is slightly

more current is not dispositive. Petitioner states that the Embassy

cable data provides rates for varying distances, unlike the

respondents' data, which provides one rate for all distances.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. The 1989 Embassy

cable data we used to value inland rail freight is less contemporaneous

than data provided by respondents by one year, but it is more precise

than the average freight rate contained in respondents' submission,

because it provides freight rates for various distances. Therefore, we

continued to use this data for the final results.

Comment 8: Respondents object to the Department's use of a selling,

general and administrative (SG&A) expenses figure of 17.99 percent,

derived from the April 1995 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Bulletin,

because (1) it is based on information that does not apply to the POR;

(2) unlike data used in Bicycles and Lock Washers, it reflects too

broad an industry spectrum; (3) the figure is aberrational, since

during previous reviews, the figure was considerably smaller; and (4)

under similar circumstances, such as in Bicycles, the Department

rejected similarly aberrational data. Instead, respondents propose

using the figure of 10 percent that the Department used in its

preliminary results for 1993 production.

Petitioner supports the Department's use of data from the RBI

Bulletin for calculating SG&A expenses. Petitioner argues that

respondents' reliance on Bicycles in this regard is misplaced because,

in that case, the Department had industry-specific information on SG&A

expenses in the surrogate country that were lower than those provided

in the petition. Thus, the Department found the RBI figure to be

uncorroborated, and of no probative value. Petitioner asserts that the

Department has no such evidence in this case. Petitioner points out

that the Department did use RBI data in Lock Washers.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. In Bicycles, we

based SG&A on industry-specific information. In this review, we did not

have SG&A data specific to the hand tool industry. The SG&A rate of

17.99 percent, which we used for both 1993 and 1994 production in the

present review, was derived from 1992-1993 data, the most recent

available data. (Our preliminary analysis memorandum, dated March 27,

1996, erroneously states that we used the 9.5 percent rate for 1993

production. We did not use this rate because it is derived from 1991-

1992 data.)

Further, we do not consider this rate to be aberrational. The

difference between the 17.99 percent rate used in this review, and the

9.5 percent rate used in the prior review, is the result of a change in

the Department's methodology for calculating SG&A, rather than an

indication of an aberration. The 17.99 percent figure includes amounts

for interest and insurance that the 9.5 percent figure does not. See

Lock Washers at 41999, in which we amended our preliminary results to

include amounts for interest and insurance in SG&A. Therefore, we have

not recalculated SG&A for the final results.

Comment 9: Tianjin argues that the Department exceeded its

authority by applying to it a PRC-wide rate. Tianjin cites UCF America

Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 96-42 (CIT Feb. 27, 1996) (UCF America)

and Sigma Corp. v. United States, 841 F. Supp. 1255, 1267 (CIT 1993)

(Sigma Corp.), in which the Court expressed concern over the

Department's NME policy, in support of its position.

Tianjin argues that, in UCF America, the Court's primary concerns

were that the PRC-wide rate increases the complexity of administrative

reviews and requires NME suppliers to participate, even if their

presence in the proceedings is unnecessary. Tianjin concludes that this

policy contravenes 19 U.S.C. section 1675, which was amended to ``limit

the number of reviews in cases in which there is little or no interest,

thus limiting the burden on petitioners and respondents, as well as the

administering authority.'' Id. (quoting H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1156, 98th

Cong., 2d Sess. 181 (1984). Thus, by applying the PRC-wide rate to

Tianjin, the Department exceeded the authority of the statute and

ignored the express intent of Congress and of the Court of

International Trade (CIT).

Petitioner points out that the issue of Tianjin's separateness was

irrelevant in the Department's determination of Tianjin's dumping

margin. The Department merely followed its policy of assessing

uncooperative respondents the highest rate from any prior segment of

the proceedings for each imported like product. Petitioner asserts,

moreover, that the Department would be justified in assigning to

Tianjin a PRC-wide rate under UCF America. Petitioner points out that

Tianjin failed

[[Page 51273]]

to establish its independence from the PRC government in the LTFV

investigation. In this review, Tianjin forfeited its opportunity to

establish separateness by not responding to the Department's

questionnaire.

Petitioner argues that the cases Tianjin cited support the fact

that Tianjin is liable for the PRC-wide rate. In Sigma Corp.,

petitioner states, the CIT rejected the use of a PRC-wide rate because

the Department unexpectedly switched from company-specific to a PRC-

wide rate for all respondents without giving them a chance to prove

their independence. Petitioner asserts that the UCF America decision

specifically endorsed the earlier decision in Tianjin Machinery Import

& Export Corp., 806 F. Supp. at 1013-15, that Tianjin should receive a

PRC-wide dumping margin.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. Regardless of the

Department's views on the concerns expressed by the CIT in UCF America

regarding the ``all others'' rates, those concerns are not implicated

in this case. The ``all others'' category is reserved for companies

that have never been investigated or reviewed. Petitioner requested a

review of Tianjin and Henan, and they refused to respond to the

Department's request for information. Therefore, we conducted the

review of these companies on the basis of adverse facts available,

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. Under our NME policy, Tianjin,

Henan and all other exporters that have not established that they are

entitled to a separate rate are considered to be part of a single,

government-controlled enterprise (the NME entity). Because Tianjin and

Henan failed to cooperate, and because they are considered to be part

of the NME entity, the entire NME entity has received a rate based on

adverse facts available. See Preliminary Results at 15220.

Comment 10: Respondents argue that the 1993 values for pallets, PVC

bags and SG&A should be changed to reflect the 1993 values the

Department used for the final results in the previous (1993-1994)

review. Respondents also claim that the Department should adjust 1994

values to eliminate bias. They argue that, while the POR covers imports

during February 1994 through January 1995 and production beginning in

January 1994, the Indian import data the Department used includes data

for April 1994 through January 1995. Thus, respondents claim, the

Department should adjust all values, except for those for HFHTs

produced in 1993, to coincide with the 1994 calendar year.

Petitioner argues that respondent has offered no citation to any

evidence in the record to support its contention that 1993 values for

pallets and PVC bags should be changed. Petitioner asserts that, in the

prior review, the Department considered and rejected respondents'

argument that Indian import statistics for 1994 should be adjusted to

reflect the POR, stating that the Indian import data was both complete

and contemporaneous.

Department's Position: As we describe above, we have changed our

factor valuation methodology for the final results to correspond with

the POR. Therefore, respondents' arguments with respect to 1993 factor

values is moot.

With respect to 1994 surrogate information, data is available for

the January through March 1994 period, and we have used that data for

our final results. Therefore, respondents argument with respect to

deflating the data is moot.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have determined that the following

margins exist:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp:

Axes/Adzes................................................. 8.74

Bars/Wedges................................................ 13.20

Hammers/Sledges............................................ 7.44

Picks/Mattocks............................................. 83.47

Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corp:

Bars/Wedges................................................ 42.97

Hammers/Sledges............................................ 14.70

Picks/Mattocks............................................. 70.31

PRC-Wide Rates:

Axes/Adzes................................................. 21.92

Bars/Wedges................................................ 66.32

Hammers/Sledges............................................ 44.41

Picks/Mattocks............................................. 108.20

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between United States price and normal value may vary from

the percentages stated above. The Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of this notice of final results of reviews for all

shipments of HFHTs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the publication date of these final

results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash

deposit rates for the reviewed companies named above which have

separate rates (FMEC and SMC) will be the rates for those firms as

stated above for the classes or kinds of merchandise listed above; (2)

for axes/adzes from SMC, which are not covered by this review, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent review of

that class or kind of merchandise in which SMC received a separate

rate--that is, the February 1, 1992 through January 31, 1993 review;

(3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rates will be the

PRC-wide rates established in these final results of this

administrative review; and (4) the cash deposit rates for non-PRC

exporters of the subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate

applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. We determine the PRC-

wide rates to be: 44.41 percent for hammers/sledges, 66.32 percent for

bars/wedges, 108.20 percent for picks/mattocks, and 21.92 percent for

axes/adzes. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 353.26 of the Department's regulations 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 reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's

regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials

or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure

to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice is in accordance with section

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

Department's regulations.

Dated: September 23, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-25119 Filed 9-30-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P