Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From The People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-822]

Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers 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.

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

SUMMARY: On August 13, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results

of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain

helical spring lock washers (HSLWs) from the People's Republic of China

(PRC) (61 FR 42000). This review covers shipments of this merchandise

to the United States during the period October 1, 1994 through

September 30, 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: December 17, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Little or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4733.

Background

The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping

duty order on HSLWs from the PRC on October 19, 1993 (58 FR 53914). On

October 5, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register (60

FR 52149) a notice of opportunity to request administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on HSLWs from the PRC covering the period

October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995.

On October 30 and 31, 1995, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a),

petitioner, Shakeproof Industrial Products of Illinois Works, and

Zhejiang Wanxin Group, Co., Ltd, (ZWG), respectively, requested that we

conduct an administrative review of ZWG, also known as Hangzhou Spring

Washer Plant. We published a notice of initiation of this antidumping

duty administrative review on November 16, 1995 (60 FR 57573).

On August 13, 1996, the Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of this review of the antidumping duty

order on HSLWs from the PRC (61 FR 42000). We held a hearing on

September 30, 1996. The Department has now completed this review in

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

Act).

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 Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements

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

Department's regulations are references to the regulations as amended

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

1995 (60 FR 25130).

[[Page 66256]]

Scope of Review

The products covered by this review are HSLWs of carbon steel, of

carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non heat-

treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are

designed to: (1) function as a spring to compensate for developed

looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly; (2)

distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and (3)

provide a hardened bearing surface. The scope does not include internal

or external tooth washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made

of other metals, such as copper.

HSLWs subject to this review are currently classifiable under

subheading 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

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

and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

This review covers one exporter of HSLWs from the PRC, ZWG, and the

period October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received case and rebuttal briefs from

petitioner, ZWG, and the American Association of Fastener Importers

(AAFI), an interested party. At the request of the petitioner, we held

a public hearing on September 30, 1996.

Comment 1: ZWG asserts that the Department may not value wire rod

based on Indian import prices from countries that the Department has

found to be dumping or subsidizing exports. ZWG states that, for more

than 80 percent of the steel bar and rod covered by the Indian import

statistics, the Department has made dumping or subsidy findings. ZWG

contends that the antidumping statute and court rulings prohibit the

use of dumped or subsidized prices to value factors of production. ZWG

cites the House Report to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of

1988, with respect to factors of production: ``In valuing such factors,

Commerce shall avoid using any prices which it has reason to believe or

suspect may be dumped or subsidized prices * * *.'' ZWG contends that

the Department has expressly acknowledged the House Report in Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron

Construction Castings From the People's Republic of China (Construction

Castings), 57 FR 10644 (March 27, 1992), citing Tehnoimportexport, UCF

America Inc. v. U.S., 783 F. Supp. 1401 (CIT 1991) (Tehnoimportexport).

ZWG states that the Court of International Trade (CIT), in

Tehnoimportexport, interpreted the House Report's ``believe or

suspect'' standard to mean that the Department correctly rejected all

Yugoslavian steel export prices, where the Department had found non-

product specific export subsidies for Yugoslavian steel. ZWG argues

that the CIT, quoting China National Metal & Minerals Import & Export

Corp. v. United States, 674 F. Supp. 1482 (CIT 1987), pointed out that

``the main consideration is the unreliability of the price information

due to the unknown dumping margin if any.'' ZWG asserts that the

``believe or suspect'' standard requires the Department to reject any

export price to any country if the Department has found the export

price to be dumped or subsidized in the United States.

ZWG argues that the Department has an established practice not to

value factors based on export prices from countries that are subject to

dumping or subsidy findings in the United States. ZWG asserts that, in

the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of China, 58 FR

48833 (September 20, 1993) (Lock Washers), the Department acknowledged

the practice of not considering pricing information from any country

found by the Department to be selling dumped or subsidized merchandise.

ZWG contends that the Department reiterated this policy in Partial

Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers From the People's Republic

of China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995) (Drawer Slides). ZWG contends that

the Department rejected the use of actual prices of cold-rolled steel

imported from Korea on the grounds that the Korean steel is subject to

dumping and subsidy findings in the United States. ZWG argues that the

Department reached this determination despite the fact that there had

never been any finding that Korean steel imported into China was dumped

or subsidized.

ZWG argues that the Department ignored its established practice in

the preliminary results of this review and the simultaneously announced

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 Review), despite the fact that almost

all of the prices originated from countries found to be subsidizing

exports. ZWG asserts that the Department justified its decision by

stating that there is no evidence that India has found dumping or

subsidizing of steel imports into India. ZWG contends that this

reasoning contradicts the established practice that requires the

Department to reject import prices for products for which the United

States has made dumping or subsidy findings, whether or not the

importing country has made such findings. ZWG argues that the

Department does not require a finding of dumping or subsidization in

the importing country to fulfill the ``reason to believe or suspect''

standard, and that a finding by the Department fulfills that standard;

therefore, the Department's findings with respect to bar and rod

preclude the use of surrogate values from certain exporting countries.

ZWG argues that the Department, therefore, may not use the Indian

import statistics for valuing steel wire rod, to the extent that the

United States has made dumping and subsidy findings from the country

that exported the wire rod to India. ZWG argues that, if the Department

decides to use Indian import statistics to value wire rod, the

Department must exclude Indian imports of bar and rod that the

Department has found to be dumped or subsidized. Therefore, ZWG argues

the Department may use Indian import statistics of bar and rod only

from Indonesia, Italy, Luxembourg, Singapore, and Thailand.

AAFI states that, although it supports the Department's preliminary

determination in general, it believes the Department should not have

based its surrogate material cost for steel wire rod on Indian import

statistics. AAFI argues that the Department cannot use Indian import

statistics from countries the Department previously determined to be

shipping dumped or subsidized product. AAFI states that the fact that

steel wire rod has been subject to dumping determinations raises a

doubt as to the accuracy of the data.

Petitioner argues that the fact that certain third countries are

subject to a U.S. antidumping or countervailing duty order does not

preclude the Department from using data related to Indian imports from

those countries. Petitioner argues that, absent evidence which shows

that exports of the merchandise to the surrogate country are themselves

dumped or subsidized, the Department should use that data. Petitioner

points out that ZWG made the same argument in the Lock Washers Review

and no new arguments have been made in this review. Petitioner notes

that the Department rejected ZWG's argument in the first review and

[[Page 66257]]

argues that, contrary to ZWG's assertions, the prior administrative

decisions and court case cited by ZWG support the Department's position

in the first review. For example, in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Romania; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 1169 (January 11, 1991)

(TRBs From Romania), the Department rejected the use of Yugoslavian

steel prices (domestic and export) because of the prevalence of dumping

and countervailing duty cases directly involving Yugoslavian steel, and

instead, the Department used Yugoslavian import prices for steel.

Petitioner argues that, in the Lock Washers less than fair value (LTFV)

investigation, the Department rejected the argument that Indian import

data from countries involved in ``dumping'' should be disregarded and

used Indian import prices from countries subject to antidumping and

countervailing duty orders. Petitioner argues that, in Drawer Slides,

the Department rejected actual Chinese import prices from Korea,

stating that ``cold-rolled steel imports from Korea are subject to U.S.

antidumping and countervailing duties orders and therefore the prices

are likely to be unsuitable for use in this context.''

Petitioner argues that ZWG cited Tehnoimportexport for the

proposition that the Department should reject the Indian import prices

as it rejected the use of export Yugoslavian steel prices. Petitioner

quotes the CIT in that case:

Commerce's decision in this case, however, was based on final

antidumping determinations upon comparable merchandise and two final

countervailing duty determinations in which Commerce determined that

countervailable, non-product specific export subsidies were bestowed

upon exports of steel products. Their decision was also based on

several European Community (EC) cases. In total, there was

substantial evidence to allow a reasonable mind to conclude that

there were dumping and subsidies favoring Yugoslavian steel exports.

Tehnoimportexport, 16 CIT 13, 18 (1992).

Petitioner asserts that there is no statutory or Department

regulatory provision that requires the rejection of surrogate import

prices based on a ``reason to believe or suspect'' standard.

Furthermore, petitioner argues that ZWG has failed to cite any case to

support its contention that the Department has an established ``reason

to believe or suspect'' practice for rejecting import prices in

determining a surrogate value. Petitioner argues that the legislative

intent of the 1988 statutory amendments to which ZWG refers do not

support the rigid approach ZWG proposes. Petitioner argues that the

Department would soon have to make a company-by-company analysis and a

review of all third country (not just surrogate country) antidumping

and countervailing duty actions if the Department were to accept ZWG's

position. Petitioner argues that Congress did not expect the Department

to conduct such special investigations. Rather, petitioner argues, the

intent of Congress was to afford relief to a U.S. industry and to

prohibit the use by the Department of prices that are demonstrably

``low'' as a consequence of dumping or subsidization. Petitioner

asserts that the standard that the Department should use is whether the

Indian imports in fact benefit from dumped or subsidized prices.

Petitioner argues that, in determining the surrogate for 1060 steel

wire rod in India, the Department is trying to determine the price in

India, and that import prices are simply a guide.

Petitioner asserts that, if prices of Indian steel imports reflect

dumping and subsidization, those prices should be low, not high.

Petitioner argues that the opposite is the case here. Petitioner argues

that, if India has imposed antidumping or countervailing duty measures

against steel imports, the decision would be different.

Department's Position: We agree with petitioner. The facts do not

establish a reasonable basis to ``believe or suspect'' the imports of

wire rod into India are dumped or subsidized. The Indian government has

not determined that steel imports into India are dumped or subsidized.

As stated in the Lock Washers Review, the fact that the Department has

made determinations of sales at less than fair value into the United

States is not a sufficient basis for a belief or suspicion that those

countries also dumped imports into India. Further, there is no evidence

that any general subsidies applied to production and exports of carbon

steel wire rod to India.

We disagree with ZWG that the use of the Indian import prices from

countries subject to U.S. antidumping and countervailing determinations

is inconsistent with prior Department decisions. In Lock Washers,

although parties argued against using import prices into India from

countries found to be selling at prices below fair market value, the

Department did use Indian import statistics for steel wire rod from

countries subject to antidumping and countervailing duty

investigations. In TRBs From Romania, the Department rejected the use

of Yugoslavian steel prices and used import steel prices into

Yugoslavia. As noted by petitioner, the CIT upheld the decision not to

use Yugoslavian export prices in Tehnoimportexport.

Although the basis for the rejection in Drawer Slides of the import

prices from Korea, a country subject to an antidumping order by the

United States, is not fully discussed in the Notice of the final

determination, we do not find that there is a per se prohibition on

using third country import statistics as surrogate values when those

statistics include imports from countries subject to U.S. antidumping

orders. Rather, the preference is to use the most accurate surrogate

data available in the circumstances of a particular case. For this

reason, we decline to follow Drawer Slides in this review.

We also disagree with ZWG's claim that the legislative history of

the Omnibus Trade Act of 1988 compels us to reject the Indian import

statistics. As stated in the House Report, Congress did not intend for

the Department to conduct a formal investigation to insure that the

prices it uses in valuing factors of production are not dumped or

subsidized. As stated above, there are insufficient grounds to

``believe or suspect'' that the prices of wire rod in the Indian import

statistics are dumped and subsidized and should not be used as a

surrogate to value carbon steel wire rod.

Comment 2: ZWG argues that the Department should value steel using

the domestic Indian prices quoted from the Steel Scenario (a monthly

journal, published by Sparke Steel & Economy Research Centre Pvt.

Ltd.). ZWG argues that it is the Department's practice to give priority

to surrogate values that are (a) contemporaneous with the period of

investigation; (b) product-specific; and (c) tax-exclusive. ZWG asserts

that the Steel Scenario price information is more contemporaneous with

the period of review (POR) than are the Indian import statistics used

in the preliminary results. ZWG argues that more than half the Indian

import statistics used in the preliminary results are from before this

period of review. ZWG also argues that the Steel Scenario prices are

size-specific and, therefore, can be specific to ZWG's actual inputs.

ZWG asserts that information is available to make the price data tax-

exclusive.

AAFI asserts that the Department should use the most accurate input

data on the record, which it believes to be the steel wire rod prices,

submitted by ZWG, adjusted to remove excise duty and statutory levy.

AAFI contends that the data submitted by ZWG is the only data which

provides size-specific prices

[[Page 66258]]

that match the steel wire rod used by ZWG. AAFI further states that the

basic principle of determining surrogate costs is to accurately

estimate the costs of production of the good in the surrogate country,

which includes using domestically sourced inputs. AAFI maintains that

the data submitted by ZWG is based upon actual prices of steel wire rod

in India and is a more accurate reflection of the price than import

statistics, especially import statistics that are suspect.

Petitioner argues that, as with the Steel Authority of India

Limited (SAIL) data that ZWG proposed in the first review, the Steel

Scenario data do not address the important issue of chemistry, while

the Indian import statistics do. Petitioner argues that, with the

exception of Drawer Slides, the Department has not used Indian domestic

steel prices since the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.

Petitioner also argues that the Department used Indian imports covering

most of the period, and that the Indian imports are contemporaneous.

Petitioner also argues that, in the overwhelming number of NME cases

involving the People's Republic of China, the Department has used

Indian import statistics.

Department's Position: We disagree with ZWG. ZWG has not

established that there is a stronger factual basis for using the Steel

Scenario data than there is for using the import statistics. As stated

in the first administrative review of this case, the scope of this

review covers HSLWs made from stainless steel, carbon alloy steel, or

carbon steel. The grade or chemistry of the steel is an important

consideration, as evidenced by the range of HSLWs covered by the order.

The chemistry of the steel determines the mechanical and physical

properties of the steel, and, therefore, is the driving factor in

determining the end use. Therefore, in this case, the grade of steel is

a more important consideration for the Department than size when

choosing between different PAPI sources. See Lock Washers Review.

Furthermore, although the Steel Scenario data is more size-specific

than the Indian import statistics, it is less grade-specific. See also,

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From the People's Republic of China; Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 60 FR 48687 (September

20, 1995). In addition, because the Indian import statistics cover the

majority of the POR, we agree with petitioner that the Indian import

statistics are contemporaneous. Therefore, we have continued to use the

Indian import statistics to value steel wire rod.

Comment 3: Petitioner asserts that the Department should determine

a constructed value for HSLWs which entered the United States from

October 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994 using the statutory minimum

eight percent profit then in effect. Petitioner contends that the

Department wrongly applied the provisions of the antidumping statutory

amendment 19 U.S.C. sec. 1677b(c), which sets no minimum amounts for

profits and selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses on

reviews initiated after January 1, 1995. Petitioner argues that the

Department's application of the statute in the preliminary results to

entries between October 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994 has the effect of

retroactively reducing the antidumping duties on entries of merchandise

which occurred before the effective date of the amendments.

Petitioner's position is that as a tax measure, retroactive application

of the antidumping statute to the disadvantage of a party affected by

those changes is unlawful. Petitioner argues that the remedy provided

by the Congress in the form of antidumping duties cannot be changed

retroactively for entries of the subject merchandise on which the

liability for the antidumping duties has already been attached.

ZWG argues that the Department should apply the current statute to

every U.S. sale covered in this review for purposes of both the future

deposit rate determination and the dumping duty assessment. ZWG

contends that petitioner's argument, current statute, and legislative

history provide no grounds for allowing the Department to apply the law

that existed prior to the URAA to this review. ZWG states that the URAA

amendments must apply to antidumping administrative reviews initiated

on or after January 1, 1995 and the Department must conduct this review

in accordance with the current provisions for calculating profit and

SG&A expenses.

Department's Position: We agree with ZWG. As stated in section

291(2) of the URAA, the URAA amendments apply to antidumping

administrative reviews initiated on or after January 1, 1995. We

disagree with petitioner that application of the URAA amendments to

entries prior to January 1, 1995 is an improper retroactive application

of the antidumping law. The entries between October 1, 1994 and

December 31, 1994 were made subject to estimated antidumping duty

deposits. The antidumping duties assessed may increase or decrease at

the time of assessment pursuant to an administrative review conducted

in accordance with the then current statute. Since this review was

initiated on November 16, 1995, the current antidumping statute, which

was in effect at the time of initiation, applies. Therefore, we are

calculating profit and SG&A for all entries covered by this review in

accordance with the provisions of the current antidumping statute.

Comment 4: Petitioner asserts that, to value the steel input

factor, the Department should consider from the Indian import

statistics three HTS subcategories of steel, 7213.41, 7213.49, and

7213.50, instead of selecting only the one category, 7213.50, which

specifically includes ``1060'' steel. Petitioner contends that, while

it agrees that the Department should use data which is most specific

for valuing factor inputs, it believes it is necessary to understand

that with the tolerances allowed for ``1060'' steel, it is possible

that the steel could be properly classified under one of the other

categories. Petitioner states that the Department used three steel

categories in the antidumping investigation of HSLWs, but concluded in

the final results of the first administrative review that it was no

longer appropriate to use all three subcategories.

ZWG argues that the Department may not use Indian import statistics

classified under HTS 7213.41 and 7213.49 because, it claims, these two

subcategories are irrelevant to the wire rod it uses. ZWG claims to

have demonstrated its use of steel wire rod with 0.6 carbon content

during this POR. ZWG argues that the Department properly determined in

the first administrative review and the preliminary results of this

review that HTS 7213.41 and 7213.49 are not relevant to the carbon

steel wire rod used by ZWG.

AAFI argues that the Department should reject petitioner's claim

that three HTS steel wire rod categories should be used to determine

surrogate steel prices. AAFI claims that HTS 7213.50 most accurately

describes the raw material actually used by ZWG in HSLW production.

Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner that in this

review we must use the three HTS subcategories used in the LTFV

investigation. As in the first administrative review, the 1060 wire rod

used by ZWG is a high carbon steel. Although tolerance levels could

allow a carbon content slightly below 0.6 percent, 1060 grade steel

wire rod imports nevertheless properly would be classified under HTS

7213.50. The HTS subcategories 7312.41 and 7213.49 suggested by the

petitioner contain wire

[[Page 66259]]

rod with a carbon content between .25 and .59 percent carbon.

Therefore, for these final results we continued to use the HTS

subcategory which contains 1060 steel wire rod. See Lock Washers

Review.

Comment 5: Petitioner asserts that the Department should use truck

rates from the August 1993 embassy cable for truck freight values

instead of truck rates derived from The Times of India. Petitioner

argues that the Department's use of the embassy cable, also used in the

final determination of the first review, would maintain consistency

from one review to the next for the same subject merchandise.

Petitioner contends that such consistency promotes predictability and

provides a strong basis for the selection of particular value sources.

Petitioner argues that the Department should continue to use the cable

data unless more contemporaneous and reliable data is provided.

Petitioner further asserts that the Department stated no reason for

changing sources. Additionally, petitioner claims that the truck rates

published in The Times of India, which were taken from a government

study, may have been selectively reviewed, and were not self-verifying.

Petitioner considers the actual government study to be a more reliable

source than the newspaper article and, therefore the government study

should have been used by the Department.

ZWG supports the Department's use of the truck rates reported in

The Times of India. ZWG claims that the rates from The Times of India,

showing truck freight rates as of April 1994, are accurate and more

contemporaneous than the data in the embassy cable. ZWG states that

rates from The Times of India are publicly available published

information, whereas the cable became public only when the Department

made it publicly available. ZWG argues that the Department consistently

determined that the data in The Times of India article is preferable to

the embassy cable for valuing truck freight rates in cases involving

products from the PRC, stating that the Department has used the data

from The Times of India since the investigation of honey from the PRC.

ZWG also references the Department's use of truck freight rate data

from The Times of India in ``Factors Valuation: Final Determination in

the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Bicycles from the People's

Republic of China'' (Bicycles), dated April 22, 1996. ZWG claims that

in Bicycles, the Department rejected the respondent's request for the

use of the embassy cable and used data from The Times of India. ZWG

also notes that in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts thereof, Finished

and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke

Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 61 FR 40610 (August 5, 1996), that the

Department reiterated that the truck freight rates in The Times of

India are ``the most recent publicly available published source.''

Referring to Lasko Metal Products v. United States, 43 F.3d 1442 (Fed.

Cir. 1994) (Lasko), ZWG also claims that the Department has never

announced a rule that it should adopt values from the first review

merely to be consistent.

AAFI alleges that petitioner's argument for use of the embassy

cable for truck freight valuation is without merit because the embassy

cable is not publicly available information. AAFI contends that the

Department should reject petitioner's argument that The Times of India

article should not be used because it is ``unverifiable.'' AAFI

maintains that it is not clear why petitioner alleges publicly

available published information from The Times of India not to be

'self-verifying,'' while petitioner does believe that the private

embassy cable is 'self-verifying.''

Department's Position: We agree with ZWG and AAFI. The Times of

India article provides the most contemporaneous values for trucking

rates. It is the Department's practice to use surrogate values from

publicly available sources which are the most contemporaneous with the

period of review. While we used the August 1993 embassy cable in the

previous review, the Department's goal is to value non-market economy

factors in as fair and accurate a manner as possible. As the Federal

Circuit expressed in Lasko, the antidumping statute ``simply does not

say--anywhere--that the factors of production must be ascertained in a

single fashion.'' Also, as the Department stated in the Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller Bearings and

Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the Republic of Hungary,

56 FR 41819 (August 23, 1991), 'simply because a particular source was

used in previous reviews of this case does not preclude the Department

from relying on alternate sources if the circumstances necessitate a

change.'' Therefore, we are continuing to use the Times of India

trucking rates as the best available surrogate information for this

review.

Comment 6: Petitioner asserts that the freight charges associated

with the movement of chemicals were not included in the calculations.

Petitioner requests that the Department review the calculations to

ensure that freight charges for chemicals were included.

Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioner. We have

reviewed our calculations and have found that the freight charges are

included in the calculation of normal value.

Comments 7: Petitioner objects to the Department's use of a weight-

based rate to determine marine insurance premiums and contends that the

Department should use shipment value to determine the premiums.

Petitioner supports this argument by citing page 22 of the verification

report, which states that marine insurance was provided by a PRC state-

owned company, using a premium based on the value of the shipment.

ZWG agrees with the Department's determination that marine

insurance premiums should be based upon weight. ZWG argues that no

value-based marine insurance data are publicly available through other

antidumping proceedings, nor were any submitted by petitioner.

Department's Position: We agree with ZWG. There was no appropriate

marine insurance surrogate based on value submitted for or available in

this review. Therefore, we are continuing to value marine insurance

based on weight of the subject merchandise.

Additional Change for the Final Results

For these final results we have recalculated labor using data from

the Yearbook of Labor Statistics (YLS). As we stated in the Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the

People's Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996), the Economic

Intelligence Unit report Investing, Licensing & Trading Conditions

Abroad: India (IL&T), released November 1995, reports estimates based

not on actual wage rates, but on rates stipulated in various Indian

laws. Therefore, we have not used IL&T data for the final results. 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 HSLW industry. 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. 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.

[[Page 66260]]

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of the comments received, we have changed the results

from those presented in our preliminary results of review:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd......... 10/01/94-09/30/95 38.27

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

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 rates will be effective upon

publication of these final results for all shipments of HSLWs from the

PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) for ZWG, which has a separate rate, and all ZWG exports through

market-economy trading companies, the cash deposit rate will be the

company-specific rate established in these final results of review; (2)

for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 128.63

percent, the PRC rate established in the LTFV investigation of this

case; and (3) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the

PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC

supplier of that exporter.

These deposit rates shall remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also 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 orders (APOs) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d)(1). Timely written notification

of the 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 are in accordance with

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

Dated: December 10, 1996.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-31980 Filed 12-16-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P