[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22045-22047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11056]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-412-602]
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts From the United Kingdom
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian C. Smith or John Beck, Office of
Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1766 or (202) 482-3464, respectively. [[Page 22046]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 7, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
an Administrative Review'' of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
Forged Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom (52 FR 35467). In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(2), in September 1993, United
Engineering and Forging (UEF) requested an administrative review of the
antidumping order covering the period September 1, 1992, through August
31, 1993. We initiated the administrative review on October 18, 1993
(58 FR 53710), and are conducting it in accordance with section 751 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Review
The products covered in this review are certain forged steel
crankshafts (CFSCs). The term ``crankshafts,'' as used in this review,
includes forged carbon or alloy steel crankshafts with a shipping
weight between 40 and 750 pounds, whether machined or unmachined. The
products are currently classifiable under items 8483.10.10.10,
8483.10.10.30, 8483.10.30.10, and 8483.10.30.50 of the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Neither cast crankshafts
nor forged crankshafts with shipping weights of less than 40 pounds or
more than 750 pounds are subject to this review. Although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Statute and to the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Such or Similar Merchandise
In determining similar merchandise comparisons, we considered the
following physical characteristics, which appear in order of
importance: (1) Twisted vs. untwisted; (2) number of throws; (3) ship
weight; (4) forging method; (5) engine type; (6) number of bearings;
(7) number of flanges; and, (8) number of counterweights (see the
February 4, 1993, model matching methodology memorandum from Louis
Apple, Acting Division Director to David L. Binder, Acting Director,
Office of Antidumping Investigations; and the April 26, 1995,
memorandum from the case analyst to the file).
United States Price (USP)
We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b)
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to an unrelated
purchaser before importation into the United States and because
exporter's sales price methodology was not otherwise indicated. We
based purchase price on the packed, c.i.f. price to the first unrelated
purchaser in the United States.
We made deductions from USP, where appropriate, for ocean and
foreign inland freight, U.S. duties, harbor maintenance and merchandise
processing fees, marine insurance and U.S. brokerage and handling
expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act. For certain
sales made by UEF's Shardlow facility, ocean freight, foreign inland
freight, U.S. duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses were not
reported. Therefore, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we
have relied upon the best information available (BIA) in these
preliminary results to value these unreported expenses for those sales.
As BIA, we applied the largest reported amount to each of Shardlow's
unreported expenses. Based on verification, we requested UEF to correct
its reported brokerage and handling expenses, and ocean freight
expenses identified in the August 23, 1994, verification reports. In
addition, we made certain corrections to UEF's reported credit
expenses, warranty expenses, U.S. duty expenses, marine insurance
expenses and additional corrections to ocean freight and U.S. brokerage
and handling expenses identified in the verification reports.
For one crankshaft model, we increased USP to account for tooling
and manufacturing costs that were not included in the U.S. sales
invoice, but were billed separately to the U.S. customer. Such costs
are normally considered a component of USP for that merchandise (see
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Forged
Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom (52 FR 5975 (February 14,
1991)).
We also made adjustments to USP, as appropriate, for price and/or
quantity changes subsequent to shipment.
Finally, we made an adjustment for taxes paid on comparison sales
in the United Kingdom, in accordance with our practice, pursuant to the
Court of International Trade (CIT) decision in Federal-Mogul, et al v.
United States, 834 F. Supp. 1993. See Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Color Negative Photographic Paper and
Chemical Components Thereof from Japan (59 FR 16177, 16179 (April 6,
1994)), for an explanation of this tax methodology.
Foreign Market Value
In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of CFSCs
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating foreign
market value (FMV), we compared the volume of the respondent's home
market sales to the volume of its third country sales, in accordance
with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we
determined that the home market is viable, and that it is the most
appropriate basis for calculating FMV.
Where home market sales were used for comparisons, we calculated
FMV based on packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to customers in the
United Kingdom. We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts.
We also made adjustments to FMV, where appropriate, for price and/or
quantity changes subsequent to shipment.
In light of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision
in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v.
United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the Department no longer
can deduct home market movement charges from FMV pursuant to its
inherent power to fill in gaps in the antidumping statute. Instead, we
adjust for those expenses under the circumstance-of-sale (COS)
provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a). Accordingly, in the present case, we
adjusted for post-sale home market inland freight charges under the COS
provision of 19 CFR 353.56(a).
Because all price-to-price comparisons involved purchase price
sales, we also made COS adjustments, where appropriate, for differences
in credit expenses, warranty expenses, and pre-sale and post-sale
warehousing expenses on U.S. sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(a). We treated the pre-sale warehousing expense as a direct
selling expense because UEF has an agreement with its U.S. customer
that it will store the subject merchandise in a warehouse before it
transfers title of the merchandise to its customer. In accordance with
section 773(a)(1) of the Act, we then added U.S. packing costs to all
home market prices. We did not deduct home market packing costs because
UEF could not report them separately.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to FMV to account for
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.57. [[Page 22047]]
For two U.S. products, we found no home market products sold in
contemporaneous periods which had an adjustment for differences in
physical characteristics of merchandise that was less than 20 percent
of the cost of manufacture of the U.S. product. For sales of one U.S.
product, we deemed it inappropriate to match a twisted with an
untwisted crankshaft (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Forged Steel Crankshafts from the United Kingdom
(52 FR 32951, 32953 (September 1, 1987)). For the second U.S. product,
there were no contemporaneous sales of comparable home market products.
For these products, we based FMV on CV. We calculated CV based on the
sum of the respondent's submitted cost of materials, fabrication,
general expenses, U.S. packing and profit. In addition, we increased
the respondent's submitted general and administrative expenses (G&A) to
include certain forging division G&A items (see August 18, 1994,
verification report for a further discussion). According to section
773(e)(1)(B) (i) and (ii) of the Act, we included the actual general
expenses which exceeded the statutory minimum (ten percent of the cost
of manufacturing (COM)). We used the statutory minimum profit, which is
eight percent of the sum of COM and general expenses, because the
actual profit amount was less than the statutory minimum.
We made adjustments to CV, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56, for
differences in circumstances of sale. These adjustments were made for
differences in credit expenses, warranties, and warehousing.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a).
All currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified information
provided by respondent by using standard verification procedures,
including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities,
examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of
original source documentation containing relevant information.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists for the period September 1, 1992, through
August 31, 1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Review period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UEF...................................... 9/01/92--8/31/93 0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request a disclosure within 5 days of
publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days of
the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44
days after the date of publication, or the first workday thereafter.
Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of
publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final results
of this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such case briefs.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirement will be effective
for all shipments of CFSCs from the United Kingdom 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 Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for UEF
will be the rate established in the final results of this review,
except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de
minimis, the cash deposit will be zero; (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 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 conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate
will be the ``all others'' rate, as set forth below.
On March 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and
Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993),
decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company,
it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department
has determined that in order to implement this decision, it is
appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by
antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping
findings, unless we are able to ascertain that ``all others'' rate from
the original investigation, the Department has determined that it is
appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first
final results of administrative review published by the Department (or
that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result
of ligitation) as the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of
establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative
reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty
order, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be
14.67 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: April 27, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-11056 Filed 5-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P