[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 42 (Friday, March 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8039-8041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4850]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-560-801, A-583-825, and A-570-844]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Melamine
Institutional Dinnerware Products From Indonesia, Taiwan and the
People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
[[Page 8040]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson at (202) 482-4929 or Erik
Warga at (202) 482-0922, Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20230.
Initiation of Investigation:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA'').
The Petition
On February 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') received a petition filed in proper form by The American
Melamine Institutional Tableware Association (``petitioners''), whose
members include Continental/SiLite International Co., Lexington United
Corp./National Plastics Corp., and Plastics Manufacturing Company
(domestic producers of melamine institutional dinnerware products
(``MIDPs'')).
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, petitioners allege
that imports of MIDPs from Indonesia, Taiwan and the People's Republic
of China (PRC) are being, or are likely to be sold in the United States
at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act,
and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material
injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioners are an association the majority of whose members are
producers of the domestic like product and, therefore, have standing to
file the petition because they are an interested party, as defined
under section 771(9)(E) of the Act.
Determination of Industry Support for the Petition
Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act requires the Department to
determine, prior to the initiation of an investigation, that a minimum
percentage of the domestic industry supports an antidumping petition. A
petition meets these minimum requirements if the domestic producers or
workers who support the petition account for (1) at least 25 percent of
the total production of the domestic like product; and (2) more than 50
percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that
portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the
petition.
A review of the production data provided in the petition and other
information readily available to the Department indicates that
petitioners account for more than 25 percent of the total production of
the domestic like product and for more than 50 percent of that produced
by companies expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition.
Petitioners represent more than 90 percent of total production of the
domestic like product. Moreover, the only other known domestic producer
of MIDPs, Gessner Products, has expressed support for the petition. The
Department received no expressions of opposition to the petition from
any domestic producer or workers. Accordingly, the Department
determines that the petition is supported by the domestic industry.
Scope of the Investigation
The scope of this investigation is all items of dinnerware (e.g.,
plates, cups, saucers, bowls, creamers, gravy boats, serving dishes,
platters, and trays) that contain at least 50 percent melamine by
weight and have a minimum wall thickness of 0.08 inch. This merchandise
is classifiable under subheadings 3924.10.20, 3924.10.30, and
3924.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience
and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Export Price and Normal Value
The following are descriptions of the allegations of sales at less
than fair value upon which our decisions to initiate are based. Should
the need arise to use any of this information in our preliminary or
final determinations, we will re-examine the information and may revise
the margin calculations, if appropriate.
Indonesia
Petitioners based export price (EP) on a price quotation for a 9-
inch plate obtained from a market research report. The terms are ex-
factory and, hence, no deductions to EP were made.
Petitioners based normal value (NV) on a price quotation for a 9-
inch plate obtained from a market research report. The terms are ex-
factory and, hence, no deductions to NV were made.
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, the calculated dumping margin for
MIDPs from Indonesia is 89.84 percent ad valorem.
PRC
Petitioners prepared two calculations of constructed export price
(CEP). In the first instance, petitioners calculated CEP based on a PRC
producer's affiliated reseller's price quote. Petitioners deducted cash
discounts, ocean freight, U.S. inland freight, containerization, and
duties. For purposes of initiation, we disallowed the deduction for
U.S. inland freight because the petition did not specify the U.S.
customer's location and did not contain any evidence indicating the
actual amount of any inland freight expenses incurred.
Alternatively, petitioners argue that the Act requires U.S.-
incurred selling expenses to be deducted from CEP. Although section
772(d)(1) of the Act requires this deduction from CEP, petitioners did
not make a corresponding adjustment to NV for selling expenses.
Therefore, we have not accepted this deduction for purposes of the
initiation. We may consider this issue further later in the
investigation.
Petitioners assert that the PRC is a non-market economy (NME)
within the meaning of sections 771(18) of the Act and in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the normal value of the
product should be based on the producer's factors of production, valued
in a surrogate market economy country. In previous investigations, the
Department has determined that the PRC is an NME, and the presumption
of NME status continues for the initiation of this investigation. See,
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure
Magnesium and Alloy Magnesium from the People's Republic of China, 60
FR 16437 (March 30, 1995).
It is our practice in NME cases to calculate NV based on the
factors of production of those factories that produced MIDPs sold to
the United States during the period of investigation.
In the course of this investigation, all parties will have the
opportunity to provide relevant information related to the issues of
the PRC's NME status and the granting of separate rates to individual
exporters. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Silicon Carbide from the PRC, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
Petitioners based the PRC producers' factors of production (i.e.,
raw materials, labor, and energy) for MIDPs on petitioners' own usage
amounts. Petitioners valued these factors, where possible, on publicly
available published Indonesian data. Where this data was unavailable,
petitioners used other acceptable sources of information. Petitioners
estimated the surrogate value of scrap based on their own experience as
to the scrap rate in MIDP production.
Indonesia is an acceptable surrogate country because its level of
economic development is comparable to that of
[[Page 8041]]
the PRC and Indonesia is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise.
Petitioners also based factory overhead and general expenses on
data contained on the public records of previous investigations in
which the information was also used as surrogate values for factors of
production of merchandise from the PRC.
Petitioners based profit on a publicly available published industry
study of the Reserve Bank of India Bulletin, September 1994, for the
Processing and Manufacturing of Metals, Chemicals, and Products
thereof.
Finally, petitioners based packing on their own U.S. packing costs,
not including packing for ocean voyage. For the purposes of this
investigation, we have disallowed the packing costs because they were
based on U.S. values rather than a factor value from an appropriate
surrogate country.
Based on comparisons of CEP to the factors of production, the
calculated dumping margin for MIDPs from the PRC, after adjustments
made by the Department, is 7.06 percent ad valorem.
Taiwan
Petitioners used a market research firm to obtain an EP price
quotation from a Taiwanese producer. Petitioners deducted a discount
from this price.
In addition, petitioners calculated CEP based on a Taiwan company's
affiliated reseller price quotation. Petitioners believe that the
Department should use CEP because there is substantial evidence that,
during the POI, this manufacturer produced subject merchandise in
Taiwan that was sold in the United States.
Petitioners deducted from CEP discounts, ocean freight, U.S. inland
freight, containerization, selling expenses and inventory carrying
expenses.
For purposes of initiation, we are rejecting this CEP calculation
because there is insufficient evidence that the Taiwan manufacturer,
Tar-Hong, produced in Taiwan the subject merchandise sold by its U.S.
affiliate during the POI. However, as this investigation proceeds, we
will consider this issue further.
Based on comparisons of EP to NV, the calculated dumping margin for
MIDPs from Taiwan, after adjustments made by the Department, is 53.13
percent ad valorem.
Fair Value Comparisons
Based on the data provided by petitioners, there is reason to
believe that imports of MIDPs from Indonesia, the PRC and Taiwan are
being, or are likely to be, sold at less than fair value.
Initiation of Investigations
We have examined the petitions on MIDPs and have found that they
meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act, including the
requirements concerning allegations of the material injury or threat of
material injury to the domestic producers of a domestic like product by
reason of the complained-of imports, allegedly sold at less than fair
value. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to
determine whether imports of MIDPs from Indonesia, the PRC and Taiwan
are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than
fair value. Unless extended, we will make our preliminary
determinations by July 15, 1996.
Distribution of Copies of the Petition
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the
public version of the petition has been provided to the representatives
of the governments of Indonesia and PRC, as well as to the Taiwan
authorities. We will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of
the petition to each exporter named in the petition.
International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification
We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section
732(d) of the Act.
Preliminary Determination by the ITC
The ITC will determine by March 22, 1996, whether there is a
reasonable indication that imports of MIDPs from Indonesia, the PRC and
Taiwan are causing material injury, or threatening to cause material
injury, to a U.S. industry. A negative ITC determination in any of the
investigations will result in that investigation being terminated;
otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to statutory and
regulatory time limits.
Dated: February 26, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-4850 Filed 2-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P