Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-811]

Steel Wire Rope From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: On December 8, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results and partial rescission of its 1997-98

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope

from the Republic of Korea (63 FR 67662). The review covers 16

manufacturers/exporters for the period March 1, 1997, through February

28, 1998. Based on our analysis of the comments received, no changes in

the calculated margin for Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd. are required.

We have, however, changed the adverse facts available margin.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann at (202) 482-5288 or

Dennis McClure at (202) 482-3530, Import Administration, International

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

Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), 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 indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the

Department's) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR

Part 351 (1998).

Background

On December 8, 1997, the Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results and partial rescission of its 1997-98

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope

from the Republic of Korea. We gave interested parties an opportunity

to comment on our preliminary results. The petitioner, the Committee of

Domestic Steel Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers, filed a

case brief. There was no request for a hearing. We have conducted this

administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is steel wire rope. Steel wire

rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel,

other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or made up into

articles, and not made up of brass-plated wire. Imports of these

products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030,

7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. Excluded from this order is stainless

steel wire rope, i.e., ropes, cables and cordage other than stranded

wire, of stainless steel, not fitted with fittings or made up into

articles, which is classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7312.10.6000.

Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs

purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is

dispositive.

Partial Rescission

As noted in the Preliminary Results, between April and August 1998,

Dae Heung Industrial (Dae Heung), Dae Kyung Metal (Dae Kyung), Korea

Sangsa, Myung Jin, and TSK Korea informed the Department that they had

no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the

period of review (POR), i.e., March 1, 1997, through February 28, 1998.

In addition, information on the record shows that Boo Kook, Hanboo Wire

Rope (Hanboo), Seo Hae Industrial (Seo Hae), and Seo Jin were no longer

in operation and that, with the exception of Seo Hae, they did not

receive our questionnaire. Using information from the Customs Service,

we have confirmed that none of these companies had shipments of subject

merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, in

accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations

and consistent with Departmental practice, we are rescinding our review

of Boo Kook, Dae Heung, Dae Kyung, Hanboo, Korea Sangsa, Myung Jin, Seo

Hae, Seo Jin and TSK Korea for this POR. See, e.g., Certain Welded

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey: Final Results and Partial

Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review, 63 FR 35191 (June 29,

1998) and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping

[[Page 17996]]

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (October 14, 1997).

Use of Facts Available

In the preliminary results of this review, we determined, in

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

available is appropriate for Dong-Il Steel (Dong Il), Dong Young,

Jinyang Wire Rope (Jinyang), Kwangshin Rope, Yeonsin Metal (Yeonsin),

and Sungsan Special Steel Processing (Sungsan), since they did not

respond to our antidumping questionnaire. None of these parties

commented on the preliminary results, nor have any arguments been

presented which would cause us to reconsider the appropriateness of

assigning margins based on facts available in the final results.

Over the course of this proceeding, the Department has faced a

pattern of continuous non-compliance on the part of a number of

uncooperative respondents 1 that received facts available.

In this review, we continue to face a pattern of non-compliance by a

number of non-responding companies. Therefore, we have concluded that

the magnitude of the rate in place for the three prior reviews, as well

as the rate applied for the preliminary results in this review, does

not offer the adequate incentive to induce the respondents to cooperate

in the proceeding. Moreover, if and when an interested party requests a

review of Korean steel wire rope companies not previously reviewed, the

Department needs to have in place a potential facts available rate that

is sufficiently adverse to induce the cooperation of these companies.

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

\1\ We have applied facts available to seven companies in the

1992/1994 review, five companies in the 1994/1995 review, three

companies in the 1995/1996 review, four companies in the 1996/1997

review, and six companies in this review (1997/1998).

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

The Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) recognizes the

importance of facts available as an investigative tool in antidumping

duty proceedings. The Department's potential use of facts available

provides the only incentive to foreign exporters and producers to

respond to the Department's questionnaires. See SAA at 868. Section

776(b) of the Act states that the Department may draw an adverse

inference where the party has not acted to the best of its ability to

comply with the requests for necessary information. The Department

applies adverse inferences to ensure that the party does not obtain a

more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated

fully. One factor the Department considers in applying facts available

is the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of

participation. See SAA at 870.

In the 1996/1997 review, we invited interested parties to supply

specific data that the Department could consider in the event that we

chose to establish a facts available rate that would be more

appropriate to that segment of the proceeding. In response to this

request for information, the petitioner, in its case brief, requested

that we use the simple average of the dumping margins from the petition

as adverse facts available (yielding a margin of 136.72 percent). The

respondents did not comment on this issue.

As we did in the 1996/1997 administrative review, in order to fully

consider this issue, we placed a copy of the original petition and the

amendment to the petition from the investigation on the record of this

administrative review (1997/1998 administrative review). After further

analysis of the petition, and in light of the non-compliance by five

companies, we again re-examined the bases for the initial dumping

allegation. Based on this re-examination, we continue to find that the

price-to-price sales used in the petition calculation are appropriate

for use as adverse facts available in this review and have increased

the adverse facts available rate from 13.79 percent to 136.72 percent

as described in Comment 1.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall in

using facts available, to the extent practicable, corroborate secondary

information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The

SAA provides that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative

value. See H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d 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, where corroboration is not practicable, the

Department may use uncorroborated information. See Notice of Final

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 63 FR 68429 (December 11, 1998).

To corroborate the export prices in the petition, we looked at the

Customs Service import statistics from 1991 for the HTSUS subheadings

7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060, and 7312.10.9090. However, we concluded

that the Customs Service data was not comparable to the prices in the

petition, because the Customs Service data encompasses a wide range of

steel wire rope products, while the sales in the petition consist of a

small number of specific product types. With regard to the normal

values used in the petition's margin calculation, we were provided with

no useful information by interested parties, and are aware of no other

independent sources of information which would assist us in this aspect

of the corroboration process.

Notwithstanding the difficulties encountered in our attempts to

corroborate the information from the petition, the Department has no

evidence that suggests that the margins in the petition do not have

probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the information from

the petition is still the most appropriate basis for facts available.

We note that the SAA specifically states that ``the fact that

corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance will not

prevent the agencies from applying an adverse inference under

subsection (b).'' See SAA at 870. Moreover, the SAA emphasizes that the

Department need not prove that the facts available are the best

alternative information. See SAA at 869.

In this instance, as discussed below in Comment 1, we have no

reason to believe that the application of the average petition margin

for Korean steel wire rope as the adverse facts available rate is

inappropriate. Therefore, for the final results, we are assigning Dong-

Il, Dong Young, Jinyang, Sungsan, and Yeonsin the rate of 136.72

percent as adverse facts available. In addition, as discussed in

Comment 2, we are continuing to assign Kwangshin Rope a rate of 1.51

percent based on the all others rate as a non-adverse facts available

rate. See also the Department's April 7, 1999, Memorandum from John

Brinkmann to Richard W. Moreland regarding application of facts

available.

Comparisons

To determine whether sales of steel wire rope to the United States

were made at less than normal value for Kumho, we compared the export

price to the normal value. We made no changes in the margin calculation

from the preliminary results of this review.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available to Non-responding

Companies

The petitioner argues that the adverse facts available rate of

13.79 percent established in the final results of the 1996/1997 review

(see Steel Wire Rope from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty

[[Page 17997]]

Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order,

63 FR 17986, 17987 (April 13, 1998)) and applied to uncooperative

respondents in the preliminary results of this review should be

adjusted to fully reflect the dumping margins calculated in the

antidumping petition (see Preliminary Results). The petitioner explains

that when the Department calculated the current adverse facts available

rate for the final results of the 1996/1997 review, the Department used

an average of the rates in the petition, after excluding certain rates

that pertained to wire rope manufactured to Military Specification (Mil

Spec.). The petitioner argues that a respondent ``should not find

itself in a better position as a result of its noncompliance than it

would have had it provided the Department with complete, accurate and

timely information,'' citing Silicon Metal From Argentina: Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 65336, 65338

(December 14, 1993) and Olympic Adhesives, Inc. v. United States, 899

F.2d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1990), (explaining that parties should

not be allowed to control the magnitude of the dumping margin by

selectively providing the Department with information).

The petitioner asserts that the Department should include all the

rates in the petition for the adverse facts available calculation for

the current review. According to the petitioner, some of the sales

excluded by the Department were not labeled as wire rope manufactured

to Mil Spec. Additionally, the petitioner argues that the Department

should include the sales labeled as Mil Spec., because these sales were

not necessarily ``certified'' as Mil Spec. The petitioner asserts that,

regardless of whether the manufacturers were certified to sell Mil

Spec. wire rope in the United States, Kumho in this review, and two

other companies in prior reviews, sold products manufactured to Mil

Spec.

DOC Position

We agree with the petitioner that we should base the calculation of

the adverse facts available margin on the average of all rates provided

in the petition. The highest rate ever calculated for this case was

1.51 percent. Thus during the investigation and until the 1996/1997

review, the adverse facts available margin was 1.51 percent. Based upon

a history of non-compliance by respondents in prior reviews, we

determined in the 1996/1997 review that the rate was not sufficiently

adverse to encourage compliance. See Steel Wire Rope from the Republic

of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 63 FR 17986 (April 13,

1998), Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products from Japan,

64 FR 8291 (February 19, 1999) and Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon

Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 64 FR 8299 (February 19, 1999).

Therefore, we looked to the petition for information to support an

adverse facts available rate that would encourage respondents to

participate in future reviews.

When reviewing the petition prices and the evidence in the record

for the 1996/97 review, we determined that Korean producers manufacture

steel wire rope which differs significantly from steel wire rope built

to the more demanding Mil Spec. Since information in the petition

indicated that some of the price-to-price comparisons involved Mil

Spec. sales, we excluded those sales from our calculation. This

determination was consistent with Department's practice of excluding

from the calculation of the adverse facts available rate a rate which

is unrepresentative of the industry sales (see Fresh Cut Flowers from

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

40604, 40606 (August 5, 1996)).

As explained in the Use of Facts Available section above,

application of adverse facts available in this administrative review is

appropriate for Dong-Il, Dong Young, Jinyang, Yeonsin, and Sungsan,

since they received and did not respond to our antidumping

questionnaire. Furthermore, the record indicates that these companies

are still operating. Therefore, based upon the information currently in

the record and the continued non-compliance of respondents in this

proceeding, it appears that the rate applied in the 1996/1997 review is

no longer the appropriate rate for the facts available margin. First,

evidence in the current review indicates that, regardless of whether

Korean steel wire rope manufacturers were certified to sell Mil Spec.

steel wire rope in the United States, at least one company did in fact

export to the United States merchandise produced to Mil Spec. in

significant quantities during the POR. Thus, there is no indication

that Mil Spec. products are unrepresentative of industry sales from

Korea. Second, based upon the continued non-compliance of respondents

in this proceeding, we find that the margin of 13.79 percent is not

sufficiently adverse to encourage compliance.

As we have determined that the petition provides an appropriate

basis for adverse facts available data, and that we have no further

indication that any of the price-to-price comparisons in the petition

are unrepresentative, we find that it is proper to rely on all 52

transactions set forth in the petition as the basis for adverse facts

available. We have determined, based upon the evidence on the record of

this current review, that a simple average of all 52 rates in the

petition would be sufficiently adverse to encourage compliance by

exporters, and not unrepresentative of industry sales. The revised rate

used as adverse facts available for the final results is 136.72

percent.

Comment 2: Application of Facts Available to a Closed Company

The petitioner argues that Kwangshin Rope failed to cooperate and

should be subject to an adverse facts available rate to the same extent

as the other uncooperative respondents (see Comment 1). Even though

Kwangshin Rope was closed, the petitioner asserts that some or all of

the required information for a response to the Department's

questionnaire is still in possession of a successor, receiver or

holding company. Thus, the petitioner states that Kwangshin Rope did

not act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's

request for information (citing Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997)).

The petitioner further asserts that it is not clear whether there

was an absence of bad faith on the part of Kwangshin Rope and that the

Department has clear authority to make an adverse inference. The

petitioner argues that there is clear and compelling logic in support

of an adverse inferences since the deposit and payment of antidumping

duties are the responsibility of the U.S. importer. In addition, the

petitioner states that Kwangshin Rope was an uncooperative respondent

in the 1992/1994 and 1994/1995 administrative reviews.

DOC Position

We disagree that Kwangshin Rope failed to cooperate and should be

given an adverse facts available rate. Section 776(b) of the Act states

that an adverse inference is applied only when ``an interested party

has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability.''

Thus, we do not generally apply adverse facts available where the

record indicates that the respondent did not receive our questionnaire.

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Static

[[Page 17998]]

Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan (SRAMS from Taiwan) 62

FR 51442, (Oct. 1, 1997), decision confirmed in Final Determination of

SRAMS from Taiwan, and Queen's Flowers de Columbia v. United States,

Slip Op. 97-120 (CIT Aug. 25, 1997) (the use of adverse ``best

information available'' was unwarranted where the respondent did not

receive a questionnaire the Department sent to an incorrect address).

In this review, Kwangshin Rope's questionnaire was returned because the

company was closed. Therefore, in accordance with our practice, it

would be inappropriate to assign an adverse facts available rate to a

company which is not capable of rebutting an inference of adverse facts

available. For the final results, we have continued to apply the all

others rate as facts available for Kwangshin Rope.

Final Results of Review

We determine the following margins exist for the period March 1,

1997, through February 28, 1998:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Dong-Il Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd....................... *136.72

Dong Young................................................. *136.72

Jinyang Wire Rope, Inc..................................... *136.72

Kumho Wire Rope Mfg. Co., Ltd.............................. 0.25

Kwangshin Rope............................................. **1.51

Sungsan Special Steel Processing........................... *136.72

Yeonsin Metal.............................................. *136.72

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

* Adverse facts available rate based on information provided in petition

** Non-adverse facts available rate based on the all others rate.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.212 (b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific

assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject

merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. We will

direct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties by applying the

assessment rate to the entered value of the merchandise entered during

the POR, except where the assessment rate is de minimis (see 19 CFR

351.106(c)(2)). The Department will issue appraisement instructions on

each exporter directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following 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 the

final results of this administrative review, as provided by section

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the other reviewed

companies will be those rates established above (except that, if the

rate for a firm is de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, a cash

deposit of zero will be required for that firm); (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 the original less-than-fair-value (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 LTFV

investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 1.51 percent, the ``all

others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (58 FR 11029).

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 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

determination is issued and published in accordance with sections

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

Dated: April 7, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-9195 Filed 4-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P