Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-810]

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

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

Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting an administrative review of

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

review covers 17 manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States for the period of review (``POR'') September 1, 1997,

through August 31, 1998.

For all companies named in this review, we are basing our

preliminary results on ``facts available'' (``FA''). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (``Customs'') to

assess antidumping duties on entries during the POR.

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 DATE: October 12, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nova Daly or Thomas Futtner, Import

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20230; telephone (202) 482-0989 or (202) 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, as amended,

(``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's

regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351

(1998).

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 30, 1998, the petitioner, Consolidated International

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

administrative review for the period September 1, 1997, through August

31, 1998. We published a notice of ``Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' on October 29, 1997 (62 FR

58705), and sent questionnaires 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''),

Gourmet Equipment (Taiwan) Corporation (``Gourmet''), Hwen Hsin

Enterprises Co., Ltd. (``Hwen''), 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 and Trade

Union responded to the questionnaire.

Questionnaires that were sent to Transcend, Kwan How, Kwan Ta,

Kuang, Everspring, and Gingen were returned as undeliverable. We are

classifying these companies as ``unlocated companies'', and, in

accordance with our practice with respect to companies to which we

cannot send a questionnaire, are assigning them the ``all others'' rate

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

was 6.93 percent. See Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 63503

(December 11, 1995); see also Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of

Man-Made Fiber From Hong Kong; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 59 FR 13926 (March 24, 1994).

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

[[Page 55235]]

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 within the scope of this

review. Chrome-plated lock nuts are also not within 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.

Facts Available

In accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we preliminarily

determine that the use of facts available is appropriate as the basis

for dumping margins for Anmax, Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto,

Hwen, San Chien, San Shing, Wing, Trade Union, and Gourmet. Section

776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A)

withholds information that has been requested by the Department, (B)

fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or

manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and 782(e) of the

Act, (C) significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping

statute, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be

verified as provided in section 782(i) of the Act, then the Department

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise

available in reaching the applicable determination.

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

antidumping questionnaire, and therefore, have withheld information

that has been requested by the Department, we preliminarily determine

that in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of

facts available is appropriate for Anmax, Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand,

Uniauto, Hwen, San Chien, San Shing, and Wing.

In addition, although Trade Union provided some information in

response to the Department's questionnaire, its submission was untimely

filed with the Department. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the

use of facts available, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(B) of the

Act, is also warranted with respect to this company.

The Department also sent a questionnaire and supplemental

questionnaires to Gourmet, which provided timely responses. However, as

was determined in the previous segment of the proceeding, see Chrome-

Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 17314 (April 9, 1999), due to the nature

of Gourmet's accounting system, the Department would not be able to

reconcile the data Gourmet submitted in its responses to the

Department's questionnaires with Gourmet's financial statements or bank

accounts. See comments in memo from Tom Futtner to Holly Kuga regarding

the facts available decision for Gourmet, September 20, 1999 (``FA

memo''). Section 776(a)(2)(D) allows the Department to use facts

otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination if a

respondent provides information but the requested information can not

be verified.

As explained in more detail below, the aforementioned companies

have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability to provide the

information requested by the Department. As a consequence, we have used

an adverse inference in selecting the facts available to determine

their margins in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.

Anmax, Buxton, Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto, Hwen, San Chien, San

Shing, and Wing received the Department's questionnaire and did not

respond. These companies have received questionnaires in previous

administrative reviews and have continued to abstain from

participation. See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Termination in

Part, 63 FR 53875 (October 7, 1998). Trade Union also has been a party

to the antidumping proceedings for lug nuts from Taiwan in past

administrative reviews. In this review, Trade Union received the

Department's questionnaire but submitted its response over one month

past the Department's deadline. Trade Union never requested an

extension and, hence, the Department rejected its submission as

untimely, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d). Because these companies have

either submitted no response or an untimely response to the

Department's questionnaire, the Department finds that Anmax, Buxton,

Chu Fong, Multigrand, Uniauto, Hwen, San Chien, San Shing, Wing, and

Trade Union have not acted to the best of their ability and should be

subject to adverse inferences for facts available under section 776(b)

of the Act.

Gourmet submitted timely responses to the Department's

questionnaire and supplemental questionnaire. However, in Gourmet's

supplemental questionnaire, Gourmet indicated that it would not provide

the Department with audited financial statements. Gourmet, as it had

done in the previous review period, see Gourmet's March 10, 1999,

supplemental questionnaire response, requested that the Department

utilize an alternative method of verification in order to substantiate

the information submitted in Gourmet's January 20, 1999, response to

the Department's questionnaire. This method would be based on a

reconciliation of the company's sales to its bank statements. However,

as was determined in the previous review period, we do not consider

this a reliable method on which to base our verification of the

company's submitted sales data. See Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts From Taiwan;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17314

(April 9, 1999). For further detail on this matter, also see FA memo.

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. Although Gourmet is aware of the Department's requirements

for verifiable submissions, it has, once again, provided information

which the Department can not verify. Therefore, Gourmet has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a

request for information from the Department. Because its submission is

not reconcilable, it is not verifiable. Consequently, we have

determined, in accordance with section 776(b), that the use of adverse

facts available also is warranted for Gourmet. Section 776(b) also

authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available,

information derived from secondary information. In this case, we have

used the highest rate from the proceeding, which is 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.

Because information from prior segments of the proceeding

constitutes secondary information, section 776(c) provides that the

Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary

information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The

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. 103-316,

Vol.1 at 870 (1994).

To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the

extent practicable, examine the reliability and

[[Page 55236]]

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, 63824 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 preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period September 1, 1997, through

August 31, 1998:

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

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

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 Shing 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

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to

parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with

these preliminary results within five (5) days after the date of

publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested

parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary

results. Case briefs are currently scheduled for submission within 30

days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs,

limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later

than five (5) days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties

who submit an argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of

the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested

parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice,

interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments raised in

the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise,

the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the deadline for

submission of rebuttal briefs. The Department will issue a notice of

the final results of this administrative review, including its analysis

of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing, not

later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

The Department shall determine, and Customs 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 Customs.

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 warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication

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

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (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 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, under 19 CFR 351.402(f), 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

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

Dated: September 29, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-26591 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P