Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary 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; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of

Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan. The review covers 18

manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States

for the period September 1, 1996, through August 31, 1997. The review

indicates the existence of margins for all firms.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

normal value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs

to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between export

price and the NV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each

comment (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of their

comment.

EFFECTIVE DATES: October 7, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner (AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office Four, Import Administration, International

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 of Commerce's

(``the Department's'') regulations refer to the regulations codified at

19 CFR part 351 (62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 20, 1991, the Department published the antidumping

duty order on chrome-plated lug nuts from Taiwan (56 FR 47736). On

September 26, 1997, the petitioner, Consolidated International

Automotive, Inc. (``Consolidated''), requested that we conduct an

administrative review for the period September 1, 1996, through August

31, 1997. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 30, 1997 (62 FR

58703), and sent questionnaire to the following firms: Anmax Industrial

Co., Ltd. (``Anmax''), Buxton International Corporation (``Buxton''),

Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co. (``Chu Fong''), Everspring Plastic Corp.

(``Everspring''), Gingen Metal Corp. (``Gingen''), Goldwinate

Associate, Inc. (``Goldwinate''), Gourmet Equipment (``Taiwan'')

Corporation (Gourmet''), Hwan Hsin Enterprises Co., Ltd. (``Hwan''),

Kwan How Enterprises Co., Ltd. (``Kwan How''), Kwan Ta Enterprises Co.

Ltd (``Kwan Ta''), Kuang Hong Industries, Ltd. (``Kuang''), Multigrand

Industries Inc. (``Multigrand''), San Chien Electric Industrial Works,

Ltd. (``San Chien''), San Shing Hardware Works Co., Ltd. (``San

Shing''), Transcend International Co. (``Transcend''), Trade Union

International Inc./Top Line (``Trade Union''), Uniauto, Inc.

(``Uniauto'') and Wing Tang Electrical Manufacturing Company, Inc

(``Wing''). Gourmet, Anmax and Trade Union responded to the

questionnaire.

Questionnaire and were sent to Transcend, Kwan How, Kwan Ta,

Everspring, Gingen, Goldwanate, and Kuang were returned as

undeliverable. These firms will receive the ``all others'' rate

established in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, which was

6.93 percent.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the this review are shipments of one-piece and

two-piece chrome-plated lug nuts, finished or unfinished, more than

\11/16\ inches (17.45 millimeters) in height and which have a hexagonal

(hex) size of at least \3/4\ inches (19.04 millimeters) but not more

than one inch (25.4 mm), plus or minus \1/16\ of an inch (1.59 mm). The

term ``unfinish'' 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-plated 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 (POR), chrome-plated lug nuts were

classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading

7318.16.00.00. Although the HTS subheading is provided for convience

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

review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Because the following firms did not respond to the Department's

antidumping questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that in

accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, the use of facts available

is appropriate for Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto, Hwen, San

Chien, San Shing, and Wing. In addition, while Trade Union and Anmax

provided some information in response to the Departments questionnaire,

the Department determined that their submissions were substantially

deficient. Pursuant to section 782(d) of the Act, the Department sent

supplemental questionnaires to Trade Union and Anmax so that they would

cure the deficiencies. However, the Department received no responses

from these companies within the designated deadline. Thus, we

preliminarily determine that the use of facts available is also

warranted with respect to these companies. The Department finds that,

in not responding to its questionnaire or to its supplemental

questionnaire, the aforementioned firms have failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of their ability to comply with requests for

information from the Department. Because necessary information is not

available on the record with regard to sales by these firms as a result

of their withholding the requested information, we must make our

preliminary determination based on facts otherwise available pursuant

to section 776(a) of the Act.

Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a

respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because

that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the

Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of the

respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also

authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information

derived from such secondary information as the petition, the final

determination, a previous administrative review, or other information

placed on the record. In this case, we have used the highest rate from

any prior segment of the proceeding, which is 10.67 percent. This rate

was

[[Page 53876]]

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.

The Department also sent questionnaires and supplemental to

Gourmet, which provided timely responses. However, as in previous

reviews, the Department has again determined that, due to the nature of

Gourmet's accounting system, it is not able to reconcile the data

Gourmet submitted in its responses to our questionnaires with its

financial statements. Reliance on the accounting system used for the

preparation of the 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) 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 can not be verified. Although Gourmet is well aware of the

Department's requirements for verifiable submissions, it has provided

information which the Department could not verify. Because its

submission is not reconcilable, it is not verifiable, and we have

determined in accordance with section 776(b) that Gourmet has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability. Thus we are

applying adverse facts available to Gourmet. See Memorandum from Thomas

Futtner to Holly Kuga, dated August 20, 1998, Therefore, as adverse

facts available, we have determined to use 10.67 percent, which is the

highest calculated rate for any firm in any segment of the proceeding.

Because information from prior reviews constitutes secondary

information, section 776(c) provides that the Department shall, to the

extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from

independent sources reasonably at its disposal. That Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) provides that corroborate means simply that

the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be

used has probative value. H.R. Doc. No. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2nd

Sess. 870 (1994).

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 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

facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and determine

an appropriate margin, see, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (61 FR 63822 December

2, 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.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

following margins exist for the period September 1, 1996, through

August 31, 1997:

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

Percent

Manufacturer/exporter margin

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

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

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

Chu Fong Metallic Electric Co................................ 10.67

Transcend International...................................... 6.93

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.................................... 10.67

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

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

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

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

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

Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days

of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may also

request a hearing within ten days of publication. If requested, a

hearing will be held as early as convenient for the parties but not

later than 30 days after the date of publication or the first work day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30

days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs,

which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed

not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice.

The Department will issue a notice of the final results of this

administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis

of issues raised in any such briefs, within 120 days from the

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, based on the above rates, antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. The rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries supplied by

that particular company during the POR. Upon completion of this review,

the Department will issue appraisement instructions on each

manufacturer/exporter directly to the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for

all shipments of chrome plated lug nuts from Taiwan entered, or

withdrawn from warehouses, for consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by

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

reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results

of this administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required

where the weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5

percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV

investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to

be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final

results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an individual

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

previous review, or the original 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 reviews or the original investigation, the cash deposit

rate will be 6.93 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the

LTFV investigation.

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of

[[Page 53877]]

antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during

this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could

result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping

duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping

duties.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: September 30, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary; Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-26918 Filed 10-06-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M