[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54472-54477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26328]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-839]
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers From the
People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann, Michelle Frederick or
Sunkyu Kim, Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5288, (202) 482-0186 or (202) 482-2613,
respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department of Commerce's (the Department) regulations are in reference
to the provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994.
Final Determination
We determine that certain partial-extension steel drawer slides
with rollers (drawer slides) from the People's Republic of China (PRC)
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins are shown in the
``Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the preliminary determination of sales at LTFV on May 30,
1995 (60 FR 29571, June 5, 1995), the following events have occurred:
On June 8, 1995, the three respondents, Guangdong Metals and
Minerals Import and Export Group Corporation (GDMC), Taiming Metal
Products Co., Ltd. (Taiming), and Sikai Hardware & Electronic Equipment
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (SHEEM), jointly submitted clerical error
allegations to the Department's preliminary determination. While the
Department found that a clerical error was made in the preliminary
determination for GDMC, because the clerical error was not significant,
as defined in 19 CFR 353.15, no revision to the preliminary
determination was made.
On June 15, 1995, Tung Wing (Hardware) Industrial Company submitted
a letter to the Department stating that it is a manufacturer of the
subject merchandise in the PRC and gave notice of appearance as an
interested party. It also requested a public hearing in this
investigation. On the same day, three interested parties, Liberty
Hardware Mfg. Corp., Armstrong Furniture, and Sauder Woodworking also
requested a public hearing.
Additional publicly available published information on surrogate
values was submitted by the petitioner and the respondents on July 6
and 10, 1995, respectively. The petitioner also submitted pre-
verification comments on
[[Page 54473]]
July 6, 1995. The respondents submitted information on steel scrap
offsets on July 10, 1995.
In July and August 1995, we verified the respondents' questionnaire
responses. Reports concerning these verifications were issued in August
1995. On August 22, 1995, the respondents submitted a letter requesting
that a public hearing not be held. The petitioner as well as the
interested parties, Liberty Hardware Mfg. Corp., Armstrong Furniture,
and Sauder Woodworking, also agreed that a public hearing should not be
held. On August 31, 1995, Tung Wing (Hardware) Industrial Company
withdrew its request for a public hearing.
The petitioner and the respondents filed case briefs on September
1, 1995, and rebuttal briefs on September 11, 1995. On September 5,
1995, the respondents submitted a letter requesting that the Department
reject the petitioner's case brief in its entirety claiming that it
contained new factual information. Specifically, the respondents
objected to petitioner's submission of information regarding the type
of rivets used in making drawer slides. The petitioner submitted
rebuttal comments to the respondents' request on September 8, 1995.
After reviewing petitioner's submission and the record in this
investigation, the Department has determined that the information
regarding rivets as submitted by the petitioner in the case brief did
not constitute new factual information (see, Memorandum to File from
Case Analyst dated September 11, 1995).
On September 6, 1995, we requested that each respondent submit
revised computer files incorporating corrections found at verification.
On September 16, 1995, we received revised computer files from each
respondent.
Scope of Investigation
The subject merchandise in this investigation is certain partial-
extension steel drawer slides of any length with rollers. A drawer
slide is composed of two separate drawer slide rails. Each rail has
screw holes and an attached polymer roller. The polymer roller may or
may not have ball bearings. The subject drawer slides come in two
models: European or Low-Profile and Over-Under or High-Profile. The
former model has two opposing rails that provide one channel along
which both rollers move and the latter has two opposing rails that
provide two channels, one for each roller. For both models of drawer
slides, the two opposing rails differ slightly in shape depending on
whether the rail is to be affixed to the side of a cabinet or the side
of a drawer. A rail may also feature a flange for affixing to or
aligning along the bottom of a drawer.
Drawer slides may be packaged in an assembly pack with two drawer
slides; that is, four rails with their attached rollers, or in an
assembly pack with one drawer slide; that is, two rails with their
attached rollers; or individually; as a drawer slide rail with its
attached roller. An assembly pack may or may not contain a packet of
screws.
Not included in the scope of this investigation are linear ball
bearing steel drawer slides (with ball bearing in a linear plane
between the steel elements of the slide), roller bearing drawer slides
(with roller bearings in the wheel), metal box drawer slides (slides
built into the side of a metal or aluminum drawer), full extension
drawer slides (with more than four rails per pair), and industrial
slides (customized, high-precision slides without polymer rollers).
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading
8302.42.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). It may also be classified under 9403.90.80. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (``POI'') is May 1, 1994, through
October 31, 1994.
Best Information Available
As stated in the preliminary determination, we have based the duty
deposit rate for all other exporters in the PRC (the ``PRC-Wide Rate'')
on best information available (``BIA''). The evidence on record
indicates that the responding companies do not account for all exports
of the subject merchandise. On January 19, 1995, the Department sent
full questionnaires to the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic
Cooperation (MOFTEC) and the China Chamber of Commerce for Machinery
and Electronics Products Importers/Exporters (the Chamber). The
Department requested that the questionnaire be transmitted to all
companies that produce drawer slides for export to the United States
and to all companies that exported drawer slides to the United States
during the POI. Although requested, the Department never received
confirmation that either MOFTEC or the Chamber had forwarded the
questionnaire.
The evidence on record indicates that not all producers of drawer
slides for export to the United States or exporters of drawer slides to
the United States responded to our questionnaire. Specifically, the
petitioner has provided in the petition, submitted on October 31, 1994,
price quotes on drawer slides obtained from a non-respondent PRC
company. Additionally, on February 17, 1995, the Department received a
phone call from a U.S. importer of drawer slides from the PRC. The
importer indicated that the PRC exporter from which he buys drawer
slides was not identified by the petitioner or the Department (see,
preliminary determination concurrence memorandum of May 30, 1995).
Also, as stated above in the Case History, Tung Wing (Hardware)
Industrial Company has identified itself as a manufacturer of drawer
slides in the PRC in a letter submitted to the Department on June 15,
1995.
Because information has not been presented to the Department to
prove otherwise, other PRC exporters not participating in this
investigation are not entitled to separate dumping margins. In the
absence of responses from all exporters, therefore, we are basing the
country-wide deposit rate on BIA, pursuant to section 776(c) of the
Act. (See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Pure Magnesium From Ukraine, 61 FR 16433 (March 30, 1995) (``Pure
Magnesium from Ukraine'')).
In determining what to use as BIA, the Department follows a two-
tiered methodology, whereby the Department normally assigns margins
based on less adverse assumptions to those respondents who cooperated
in an investigation and margins based on more adverse assumptions for
those respondents who did not cooperate in an investigation. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from the Federal
Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden, Thailand and the
United Kingdom, 54 FR 18992, 19033 (May 3, 1989). When a company
refuses to provide the information requested in the form required, or
otherwise significantly impedes the Department's investigation, the
Department assigns to that company the higher of (a) the highest margin
alleged in the petition, or (b) the highest calculated rate of any
respondent in the investigation.
In this investigation, because the evidence indicates that not all
PRC exporters of drawer slides responded to our questionnaire, we are
assigning to any PRC company, other than those specifically identified
below, the PRC-Wide deposit rate. In this investigation,
[[Page 54474]]
that rate is the highest margin alleged in the petition, as
recalculated by the Department for purposes of the initiation, because
it is higher than the highest calculated rate of any respondent. (See
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Partial-Extension
Steel Drawer Slides with Rollers from the People's Republic of China,
59 FR 60773 (November 28, 1994)).
Separate Rates
In the preliminary determination in this case, we found that each
of the three respondents qualified for separate rates. The facts, as
analyzed in the preliminary determination, were verified as accurate.
No comments were received objecting to those findings, nor has any
information come to our attention to alter our conclusion. Therefore,
we are assigning the three respondents separate rates for the final
determination. For discussion of our separate rates analysis in this
case see the Preliminary Determination.
Nonmarket Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as a nonmarket economy country
(NME) in all past antidumping investigations. Given that no information
has been provided in this proceeding that would lead us to conclude
otherwise, in accordance with section 771(18)(c) of the Act, we
continue to treat the PRC as an NME for purposes of this investigation.
Surrogate Country
In the preliminary determination in this case, we determined that
India is the preferred surrogate country for purposes of calculating
the factors of production. See Section 773 (c)(4) of the Act. No
comments were received objecting to our determination, nor has any
information come to our attention to alter our conclusion. Therefore,
we are using India as the preferred surrogate country for the final
determination. Although India is the preferred surrogate country, we
have resorted to Indonesia for a certain surrogate value where an
Indian value was determined to be inappropriate. See Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring
Lock Washers from the PRC, 58 FR 48833, 48835 (September 20, 1993)
(``Helical Spring Lock Washers'') and Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cased Pencils from the People's Republic
of China, 59 FR 55625, 55629 ( November 8, 1994) (``Certain Cased
Pencils'').
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of drawer slides from the PRC to the
United States by Taiming, SHEEM, and GDMC were made at less-than-fair-
value prices, we compared the United States price (USP) to the foreign
market value (FMV), as specified in the ``United States Price'' and
``Foreign Market Value'' sections of this notice.
United States Price
United States price was calculated on the basis of purchase price,
as described in the preliminary determination, in accordance with
section 772 (b) of the Act. Pursuant to findings at verification, minor
adjustments were made to foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and
handling, the date of shipment, and the date of sale for certain sales
reported by Taiming. For SHEEM, minor adjustments were made to the date
of shipment and the date of payment for certain sales. In addition, we
revised our calculation of foreign inland freight by valuing this
charge in the surrogate country for all sales in the POI (see Comment 6
below). In the case of GDMC, minor adjustments were made to the
reported date of shipment for certain sales.
Foreign Market Value
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated FMV
based on factors of production cited in the preliminary determination,
making adjustments based on our findings at verification. To calculate
FMV, the verified factor amounts were multiplied by the appropriate
surrogate values for the different inputs. We have used the same
surrogate values used in the preliminary determination with certain
revisions as discussed below (see, also, concurrence memorandum of
October 18, 1995).
In our preliminary determination, we valued factory overhead,
including energy, based on industry group income statements for
``Processing and Manufacture--Metals, Chemicals, and Products thereof''
from the September 1994 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin (1994 RBI). For
the final determination, although we based the factory overhead
calculations principally on the 1994 RBI, we did not use in our
calculations the 1994 RBI figure for ``Power and fuel.'' Instead, we
used the actual verified energy consumption figures provided by the
respondents, which are specific to the drawer slides industry and more
appropriate than energy consumption figures for a more general industry
group (see Comment 5 below). To value electricity, we used the average
Indian state electricity rates, as published in the June 1994, edition
of Current Energy Scene in India by the Centre for Monitoring the
Indian Economy, Pvt. Ltd. This information was used because, out of all
the available sources, it is the most contemporaneous to the POI.
To value steel rivets, we used in our preliminary determination
public information from the August 1994 Monthly Statistics of the
Foreign Trade of India, Imports (Indian Import Statistics). Since the
preliminary determination, the respondents have provided information
which led us to question the reliability of the value for steel rivets
provided in the Indian Import Statistics. Based on a comparison of the
Indian import value used in the preliminary determination to other
values on the record, we determined that the Indian import value for
steel rivets does not provide a reliable basis for valuing the factor.
Therefore, we have valued this input using Indonesian import statistics
(see Comment 2 below).
For Taiming, SHEEM, and GDMC, we adjusted the factor value for
cold-rolled steel to exclude the cost of ocean freight. In our
preliminary determination, we added ocean freight to the surrogate
value for cold-rolled steel. For the final determination, we determined
that it was inappropriate to add ocean freight to the cost of cold-
rolled steel when we are using a surrogate country domestic price to
value the steel (see Comment 3 below).
In addition, for Taiming, SHEEM, and GDMC, we adjusted labor hours
and consumption figures of certain factors to reflect verified
information. We also used the verified distances between factory and
input supplier to calculate foreign inland freight. In the case of
GDMC, we used the POI consumption of plastic packing strip instead of
plastic bags because it was discovered at verification that the company
had misreported plastic packing strip as plastic bags.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by the respondents for use in our final
determination. We used standard verification procedures, including
examination of relevant accounting and production records and original
source documents provided by the respondents.
[[Page 54475]]
Interested Party Comments
Comment 1: Surrogate Value for Cold-Rolled Steel
The petitioner argues that in our final margin calculations, the
Department should value the cold-rolled steel based on public
information provided by the petitioner in its July 6, 1995, submission.
The petitioner provided copies of excerpts from the Iron and Steel
Newsletter, June-October 1994, published in India by Galkrishna Binani,
on behalf of the Asian Industry & Information Services P. Limited. The
cold-rolled steel prices as contained in the newsletter reflect
wholesale prices for cold-rolled sheet in Bombay for the period June
through October, 1994. The petitioner asserts that this data is more
accurate than the data used in the preliminary determination because it
is (1) contemporaneous with the POI, and (2) is more reflective of the
price that a manufacturer of drawer slides would pay for steel.
The respondents contend that we should reject the petitioner's data
on steel for the following reasons: (1) The data pertains to the price
of cold-rolled sheet, not cold-rolled coil which was used by all three
respondents in producing drawer slides; and (2) the price data does not
specify the thickness of the steel. The respondents assert that the
Department should continue to use the data used in the preliminary
determination.
DOC Position. We agree with the respondents. In our preliminary
determination, we used public information from the 1994 edition of
Statistics for Iron & Steel Industry in India, published by the Steel
Authority of India Limited (SAIL). We continue to use this source in
our final determination instead of the data provided by the petitioner
because it provides prices for steel that most closely resembles the
specifications of the product used by the respondents. Although the
surrogate data provided by the petitioner is more contemporaneous to
the POI than the SAIL data, we adjusted the SAIL data for inflation in
an effort to accurately reflect the price of cold-rolled steel during
the POI. We note that there is no factual information on record to
support the petitioner's argument that the prices provided in the Iron
and Steel Newsletter are more reflective of the price that a
manufacturer of drawer slides would pay for steel.
Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Steel Rivets
The respondents contend that the surrogate value for rivets used in
the preliminary determination is aberrational because (1) it results in
calculations in which the cost of rivets is almost as high as the cost
of steel used to produce the subject merchandise; and (2) it
unreasonably exceeds all other known values for rivets, including price
quotes obtained from Indian rivet manufacturers; actual prices paid for
rivets by one of the respondents and the petitioner; Indian export
data; and Indonesian import data. The aberrational value, the
respondents claim, probably results from the small volume of rivets
imported into India.
The petitioner argues that we should continue to value rivets based
on Indian import data used in the preliminary determination. As support
for not finding the value aberrational, the petitioner cites to the
Pure Magnesium from Ukraine, where the Department determined that the
primary surrogate value was not aberrational. The petitioner asserts
that the Indian import data fulfills all of the Department's
requirements for using publicly available, published information (PAPI)
in NME investigations.
Moreover, the petitioner claims that the production of drawer
slides requires a specific type of high-end rivet, known as a wheel
rivet, which is far more expensive than standard rivets. This
information was submitted in petitioner's case brief along with a
diagram of a wheel rivet and a standard ``round-headed'' rivet. The
petitioner asserts that prices the respondents have submitted in their
July 10, 1995, submission are not applicable to wheel rivets and
therefore should not be used as surrogate value for rivets.
Specifically, the Indian domestic price quotes as obtained by the
respondents are for ``round-head'' rivets, as referenced on the
invoice. Additionally, the Indian domestic industry data reports values
for ``tubular'' rivets. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the price
data provided by the respondents are not relevant for purposes of
valuing rivets for drawer slides. Furthermore, the petitioner argues
that the petitioner's own rivet costs are not relevant to the costs of
rivets that would be incurred by Indian producers of drawer slides or
the respondents because of the different production process of rivets
in the U.S.
DOC Position. We agree with the respondents that the Indian import
value for rivets used in the preliminary determination is inappropriate
and, therefore, is not a reliable factor to use as the surrogate value
for rivets.
For purposes of establishing the reliability of the Indian import
value used in the preliminary determination, we determined that it
would be inappropriate to compare the Indian import value to the price
quotes from Indian manufacturers of rivets as well as the Indian
domestic industry data, as submitted by the respondents on July 10,
1995, because both data specifically pertain to prices for ``round-
headed'' or ``tubular'' rivets. From the petitioner's submission
regarding the type of rivets used in the production of drawer slides
and our observations at verification, we have determined that the
respondents utilized wheel rivets in producing drawer slides sold to
the U.S. during the POI. Additionally, with respect to actual
acquisition price of rivets obtained by Taiming, we note that there is
no information on the record indicating whether the Hong Kong supplier
actually manufactured the rivets. Absent evidence that the rivets
Taiming purchased were actually sourced in a market economy, it would
be inappropriate to use the actual purchase price to value the rivets.
(See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Ferrovanadium and Nitrided Vanadium from the Russian Federation 60 FR
27957, 27962 (May 26, 1995) (``Ferrovanadium from Russia'') (In NME
proceedings, our practice has been to determine whether a good or
service obtained through a market economy transaction is, in fact,
sourced from a market economy rather than merely purchased in it)).
Accordingly, to determine whether the Indian import value for
rivets is reliable, we compared the Indian import value to the
remaining values for rivets on the record (i.e., Indian export price
data; Indonesian import price data; and the petitioner's own cost for
rivets as provided in the supplement to the petition submitted on
November 15, 1994). We disagree with the petitioner's claim that the
U.S. price is not relevant in determining the reliability of the Indian
import data (see Certain Cased Pencils, 59 FR at 55633). As stated in
Certain Cased Pencils, ``where, as here, questions have been raised
about PAPI with respect to particular material inputs in the chosen
surrogate country, it is the Department's responsibility to examine
that PAPI.'' Id. A comparison of the Indian import value and the
remaining values on the record indicates that the Indian import value
is at least several times higher than the remaining values. Based on
this comparison, we find that the Indian import value for rivets is not
reliable. (See, also, concurrence memorandum of October 18, 1995.)
The petitioner's reliance on Pure Magnesium from Ukraine in support
of its position is misplaced. In Pure
[[Page 54476]]
Magnesium from Ukraine, unlike this investigation, the evidence on the
record did not support a finding that the primary surrogate value for
an input was questionable. In this investigation, however, the prices
used for comparisons from the sources discussed above, including the
petitioner's own price for wheel rivets, demonstrate that the Indian
import value is not reliable.
In our final calculations, we used the import statistics from our
second surrogate country, Indonesia, to value rivets. Although
Indonesia is not the first choice surrogate country in this
investigation, in past cases, the Department has used values from other
possible surrogate countries for inputs where the value from the first
choice surrogate country was determined to be unreliable. (See Certain
Cased Pencils, 59 FR at 55629 and Helical Spring Lock Washers, 58 FR at
48835.) In addition, the Indonesian import value is preferable over the
other values we have on record (i.e., Indian export statistics and the
petitioner's own cost) because it is the Department's practice in
selecting surrogate values (1) To use public information over privately
obtained prices, wherever possible (see Helical Spring Lock Washers, 58
FR at 48835); and (2) not to use the Indian export prices because India
maintains non-specific export subsidies (see, Memorandum from David
Mueller, Director, Office of Policy, to Gary Taverman, Acting Director,
Office of Antidumping Investigations, dated January 25, 1995). The
Indonesian import value does not pertain to a specific type of rivet.
However, the Indonesian import value is in line with the petitioner's
own cost of wheel rivets as provided in the petition.
Comment 3: Ocean Freight
The respondents argue that the Department should not add ocean
freight to the costs of cold-rolled steel. In the preliminary
determination, the Department rejected the actual acquisition prices
for cold-rolled steel coil used by the respondents in the production of
subject merchandise, which included expenses for transporting the steel
to the PRC. The Department instead used publicly available, published
data based on domestic Indian prices for steel coil and added a
surrogate ocean freight value to that amount. The respondents contend
that the Department made an error in adding ocean freight to the
domestic Indian surrogate price. They argue that the addition of ocean
freight is inconsistent with the Department's past practice. In support
of their position, the respondents cite to Certain Cased Pencils and
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Coumarin from the
PRC, 59 FR 66895 (December 28, 1993) (Coumarin).
The petitioner urges the Department to uphold its preliminary
determination and add ocean freight to the cost of steel. The
petitioner asserts that adding ocean freight costs to the surrogate
Indian domestic steel price is consistent with the Department's
practice.
DOC Position. We agree with the respondents that the ocean freight
costs should not be added to the surrogate Indian domestic steel price.
For the reasons discussed in the preliminary determination, we have
rejected the respondents' actual experience in obtaining steel.
Therefore, we must use a surrogate value methodology. As a surrogate
value, we used a domestic Indian price for steel. Because we used a
surrogate value that represents a domestically sourced input, it is
inappropriate to include ocean freight.
Comment 4: Steel Scrap Offset
The petitioner argues that we should reject the scrap offsets
reported by all three respondents on the grounds that the data
concerning scrap offsets was untimely filed. The petitioner points out
that all three respondents provided information regarding the scrap
offset only seven days before verification, and even then, failed to
provide any supporting documentation.
In addition, the petitioner claims that all three respondents
failed to provide sufficient evidence at verification to justify the
accuracy of the amount of scrap sales as submitted on July 10, 1995.
Each respondent claims that the amount of steel scrap offset for
the POI was verified as reported in their submission of July 10, 1995.
Therefore, they request that the Department make adjustments in the
final calculations to adjust for steel scrap offsets.
DOC Position. We agree with the petitioner in part. We disagree
with the petitioner that the respondents' submission on steel scrap
offsets was untimely filed. The last day for submitting new information
on the record in this investigation was July 10, 1995, seven days prior
to the beginning of verification (see 19 CFR 353.31 (a)(i)). As the
respondents submitted information on scrap offsets on July 10, 1995,
the information was timely filed.
With respect to GDMC, we agree with the petitioner that the
respondent has not provided information to support their claim that the
reported amount of scrap sold specifically pertained to the sales of
subject merchandise. SEW produced drawer slides for sales to the U.S.
and domestic market during the POI. At verification, no methodology for
allocating the total amount of steel scrap between the U.S. and
domestic markets was provided. Therefore, we have no way of allocating
the amount of scrap between the two markets. Accordingly, we did not
allow any adjustments for steel scrap in our final calculation (see,
also, concurrence memorandum of October 18, 1995).
With respect to Taiming, we also agree with the petitioner. Taiming
reported that it used 1.15 mm steel to produce drawer slides sold to
the United States during the POI. However, the copies of payment
vouchers provided at verification to support the amount of reported
steel scrap sold did not identify 1.15 mm steel. Therefore, we conclude
that there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that the
reported amount of scrap sold pertained to the production of drawer
slides sold to the U.S. Accordingly, we did not allow any adjustments
for steel scrap in the final calculation (see, also, concurrence
memorandum of October 18, 1995).
In the case of SHEEM, we agree with the petitioner that the
respondent has failed to provide support for the reported amount of
scrap sold during the POI. SHEEM reported the total amount of scrap
generated, rather than the amount of steel scrap sold during the POI.
At verification, company officials provided two invoices indicating
sales of steel scrap sold during the POI. However, SHEEM was not able
to support its claim that these two invoices represented the total
amount of scrap sold during the POI. Accordingly, we did not allow any
adjustments for steel scrap in our final calculation (see concurrence
memorandum of October 18, 1995).
Comment 5: Energy
The respondents argue that the calculation of factory overhead
should exclude the energy components from the 1994 RBI data. Instead,
the respondents urge the Department to use the figures for energy based
on the respondents' actual usage.
The respondents claim that the use of energy components as provided
in 1994 RBI is inaccurate. They assert that in light of the fact that
the Department has concluded that the drawer slides industry is not
energy intensive, it should not rely on the factory overhead figure in
the 1994 RBI because 42 percent of that figure consists of energy
element.
In the preliminary determination, energy was treated as a component
of factory overhead. The Department's
[[Page 54477]]
calculation of factory overhead was based on statistics provided in the
1994 RBI data. Inasmuch as the Department determined that the drawer
slides industry is not an energy-intensive industry, the Department
included a value for energy in its calculation of the percentage of
factory overhead.
The petitioner contends that the respondents failed to provide any
support for their conclusion that the energy factor could not reflect a
non-energy intensive industry.
DOC Position. We agree with the respondents. The RBI statistics on
which we relied at the preliminary determination pertain to a broad
category of industries, some of which are considered to be energy-
intensive (e.g., automobiles, and other transport equipment). In our
final determination, we used the actual verified energy consumption
figures provided by the respondents, which are specific to the drawer
slides industry and more appropriate than energy consumption figures
for a more general industry group. To value electricity, we used the
average Indian state electricity rates, as published in the June 1994,
edition of Current Energy Scene in India by the Centre for Monitoring
the Indian Economy, Pvt. Ltd. (See, also, concurrence memorandum of
October 18, 1995.)
Comment 6: Foreign Inland Freight Expenses for SHEEM
The respondent requests the Department to revise its calculation of
foreign inland freight. SHEEM contends that the Department incorrectly
calculated foreign inland freight in the preliminary determination by
computing a cost based on an amount of actual inland freight paid on a
single shipment. SHEEM argues that instead of using the cost of a
single shipment, the Department should use either SHEEM's actual
freight expenses as reported to the Department or a surrogate country
cost to value foreign inland freight.
DOC Position. We agree with the respondent. For all shipments made
during the POI, SHEEM used one freight forwarding company to handle
both the shipment from the factory to the Guangzhou port and the
shipment from the Guangzhou port to Hong Kong. Because the
transportation services were sourced from a company which is located in
China and is a joint venture company between a Chinese company and a
Hong Kong company, we conclude that the inland transportation charges
SHEEM paid do not reflect a market economy based price (see,
Ferrovanadium from Russia). Therefore, in our final determination, we
applied a surrogate country cost to value foreign inland freight for
all U.S. sales made during the POI.
Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(1) and 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act,
we are directing the Customs Service to continue to suspend liquidation
of all entries of drawer slides from the PRC that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after June 5, 1995,
which is the date of publication of our notice of preliminary
determination in the Federal Register. The imports of subject
merchandise that are sold by Taiming, SHEEM, and GDMC and manufactured
by producers whose factors formed the basis for the zero margin will be
excluded from an antidumping duty order should one be issued. Under the
Department's NME methodology, the zero rate for each exporter is based
on a comparison of the exporter's U.S. price and FMV based on the
factors of production of a specific producer (which may be a different
party). The exclusion, therefore, applies only to subject merchandise
sold by the exporter and manufactured by that specific producer.
Merchandise that is sold by the exporter but manufactured by other
producers will be subject to the order, if one is issued. The Customs
Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a bond equal to the
estimated amount by which the FMV exceeds the USP as shown below. These
suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until
further notice.
The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Exporter/manufacturer margin
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taiming/Taiming............................................ 0.00
Taiming/Any other manufacturer............................. 55.69
SHEEM/SHEEM................................................ 0.00
SHEEM/Any other manufacturer............................... 55.69
GDMC/Second Experimental Workshop.......................... 0.00
GDMC/Any other manufacturer................................ 55.69
``PRC-Wide'' Rate.......................................... 55.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. As our final determination is affirmative,
the ITC will determine whether these imports are causing material
injury, or threat of material injury, to the U.S. industry within 45
days. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material
injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all
securities posted will be refunded or cancelled. If the ITC determines
that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping
duty order directing Customs officials to assess antidumping duties on
all imports of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the
suspension of liquidation.
This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.20(a)(4).
Dated: October 18, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-26328 Filed 10-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P