Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-810]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

review and termination in part.

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

SUMMARY: On July 8, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The

review covers 18 manufactures/exporters and the period September 1,

1994, through August 31, 1995. Based on our analysis of the comments

received, the dumping margins have changed from those presented in the

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-

4195 or 482-3814, respectively.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, 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 be

current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in

the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

On July 8, 1996, the Department published the preliminary results

(61 FR 35724) of its administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (September 20, 1991, 56 FR

47737). The Department has now completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise covered by this review is one-piece and two-piece

chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, which are 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 over

one inch (25.4 millimeters), 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-plate 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, chrome-plated lug nuts were provided

for under subheading 7318.16.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS). Although the HTS subheading is provided for convenience and

Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review

is dispositive. This review covers the following firms: Gourmet

Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation (Gourmet), Buxton International

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

International, Kuang Hong Industries Inc., San Chien Industrial Works,

Ltd, Everspring Plastic Corporation, Anmax Industrial Co., Ltd., Gingen

Metal Corp., Golwinate Associates, Inc., Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co.,

Ltd., Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd., Kwan Ta Enterprises Co., Ltd.,

San Shing Hardware Works Co., Trade Union International Inc./Top Line,

Uniauto, Inc., Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company and

Multigrand Industries Inc. and the period September 1, 1994, through

August 31, 1995. Buxton and Uniauto are related firms and responded as

one firm, Buxton/Uniauto.

Analysis of Comments Received

We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary

results. We received timely comments from the petitioner, Consolidated

International Automotive, and rebuttal comments from Buxton and

Gourmet.

Comment

Petitioner believes that the Department should apply the more

adverse facts available (FA) rate of 10.67 percent to Buxton/Uniauto

and Gourmet. Petitioner points out that these respondents have failed

to provide questionnaire responses that can be reconciled with audited

financial statements in prior reviews, and have also failed to do so in

this review. Petitioner argues that respondents should not be rewarded

for ongoing deficiencies with lower rate, particularly in light of the

need for the Department to ensure accurate responses.

Petitioner states that the Department adheres to one of two

guidelines when applying facts available to a respondent that

substantially cooperates, but fails to provide all the information

requested in a timely manner or in the form requested. The Department

either applies the highest rate ever applicable to the firm or the

highest calculated rate in the review for the same merchandise and

country. See Allied-Aerospace Co. v. United States, 995 F.2d 1185, 1188

(Fed. Cir. 1993) Petitioner states that the

[[Page 58373]]

statute provides discretion for the Department to determine which

guideline to use for FA and cites to United States v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 64 C.C.P.A. 130, 142-144, 562 F.2d 1209, 1219-22 (Fed. Cir.

1977). Further, the petitioner notes that the Department is entitled to

great deference if there is substantial evidence in the record

supporting the Department's choice. See Industria Fundicao Tupy v.

United States, Slip Op. 96-113 (CIT, July 22, 1996).

Petitioner argues that the Department is not bound by prior

practice and may depart from its practice as long as it provides a

reasonable explanation for the change. See Citrosuco Paulista, SA v.

United States, 12 CIT 1196, 1209-1210, 704 F. Supp. 1075, 1088 (CIT

1988). Petitioner argues that by applying an adverse margin, the

Department would be achieving the goal of the statute which is to

determine the current margins as accurately as possible. See Rhone

Poulenc v. United States, 899 F.2d at 1191 (Fed Cir. 67-68)

Both respondents argue that they have cooperated and will continue

to cooperate with the Department to the best of their abilities. They

state that the petitioner has provided no new information or legal

argument to cause the Department to change its long standing practice

of refusing to apply adverse margins to cooperative respondents.

Department's Position

Buxton/Uniauto and Gourmet provided responses to our

questionnaires; however, none of the information was usable. While

planning for verification of these two firms, the Department received

submissions from each firm stating that a verification would produce

the same results as in previous reviews where the Department was unable

to reconcile the data Gourmet and Buxton/Uniauto submitted in their

responses to their audited financial statements (see Buxton/Uniauto and

Gourmet submissions dated March 28, 1996, and May 1, 1996,

respectively). 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. Section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act

states that the Department ``shall, subject to section 782(d), use the

facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination

under this title'' if an interested party or any other person provides

information but the information cannot be verified. Because Buxton/

Uniauto and Gourmet admit their submissions are unreconcilable to their

respective audited financial statements, they are perforce

unverifiable. Therefore we have determined to apply facts available to

Gourmet and Buxton/Uniauto.

Even though these firms submitted responses to our request for

information, they submitted information that they knew could not be

verified. Indeed, both firms acknowledged that the responses submitted

for this POR were no more verifiable than similar responses submitted

in previous reviews. While both firms have participated in several

antidumping administrative reviews and are thoroughly familiar with the

Department's requirements, they have failed to comply with the

Department's standards. We believe these respondents have had

sufficient notice of the Department's requirements for verifiable

submissions and ample opportunity to provide information that is

amenable to verification. Yet these respondents have continued to

provide unusable data. Therefore, in accordance with 776(b), we

determine that respondents have failed to cooperate by not acting to

the best of their ability, and thus we are using an adverse inference

in our application of facts available. In these finals results, we have

used the highest calculated margin for any firm in any segment of this

proceeding, 10.67 percent, as the rate for Gourmet and Buxton/Uniauto.

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as

adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the

final determination, a previous administrative review, or other

information placed on the record. The statute also provides that the

facts otherwise available may be based on secondary information.

Because information from prior proceedings constitutes secondary

information, section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department

shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary

information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The

Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) which accompanied the URAA,

provides that corroborate means simply that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.

To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the

extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the

information to be used. However, unlike other types of information,

such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent

sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is

administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if

the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated

dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not

necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time

period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,

the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as

to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not

relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not

appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard

the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review (61 FR 6812, February 22, 1996), where the

Department disregarded the highest margin as adverse facts available

because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic

business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). No such

circumstances exist in this case which would cause the Department to

disregard a prior margin. In this case, we have used the highest rate

from any prior segment of the proceeding, 10.67 percent. This rate was

calculated in the Amendment to the Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value (56 FR 47737, September 20, 1991), covering the period

May 1, 1990 through October 31, 1990.

Final Results of Review

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

margins exist for the period September 1, 1994, through August 31,

1995.

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

Percent

Manufacturer exporter margin

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

Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation........................ 10.67

Buxton International/Uniauto.................................. 10.67

Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co................................. 6.93

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

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

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

Everspring Plastic Corp....................................... 6.93

Gingen Metal Corp............................................. 6.93

Goldwinate Associates, Inc.................................... 6.93

Hwen Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd................................ 10.67

Kwan How enterprises Co., Ltd................................. 6.93

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

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

Multigrand Industries Inc..................................... 6.93

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

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

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

[[Page 58374]]

Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company.................... 10.67

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions concerning all respondents

directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

Further, the following cash 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

these final results of administrative review, as provided for by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the

reviewed firms will be the rates initiated above; (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 in 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 6.93%, the all others rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

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 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 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). Timely written notification or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. 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: November 4, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-29090 Filed 11-13-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M