[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60299-60302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29995]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-822]
Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers From the People's Republic of
China; 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: We preliminarily determine that sales of certain helical
spring lock washers from the People's Republic of China were made below
normal value during the period October 1, 1996 through September 30,
1997. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hastings or Vincent Kane, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-3464 or 482-2815, respectively.
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, as amended (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 19 CFR part 351 et. seq. Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296 (May 19, 1997).
Background
On October 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty
order on certain helical spring lock washers (HSLWs) from the People's
Republic of China (PRC) (58 FR 53914). The Department notified
interested parties of the opportunity to request an administrative
review of this order on October 2, 1997 (62 FR 51628). The
[[Page 60300]]
petitioner, Shakeproof Industrial Products Division of Illinois Tool
Works, Inc., and the respondent, Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co. (ZWG) (also
known as Hangzhou Spring Washer Plant), requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of ZWG. These requests were received
on October 24 and 27, 1997, respectively. The notice of initiation of
this administrative review was published on November 26, 1997 (62 FR
63069). On July 10, 1998, the Department extended the time limits for
completion of the preliminary results in this proceeding until October
31, 1998 (See 63 FR 37328).
The Department is conducting this administrative review in
accordance with Section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
The products covered by this review are HSLWs of carbon steel, of
carbon alloy steel, or of stainless steel, heat-treated or non-heat-
treated, plated or non-plated, with ends that are off-line. HSLWs are
designed to: (1) Function as a spring to compensate for developed
looseness between the component parts of a fastened assembly; (2)
distribute the load over a larger area for screws or bolts; and, (3)
provide a hardened bearing surface. The scope does not include internal
or external tooth washers, nor does it include spring lock washers made
of other metals, such as copper.
HSLWs subject to this review are currently classifiable under
subheading 7318.21.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope
of this proceeding is dispositive.
This review covers the period from October 1, 1996 through
September 30, 1997.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales and
factor information provided by ZWG in Xiaoshan, PRC, using standard
verification procedures, including on-site inspection of its
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,
and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. The findings at verification are detailed in the
verification report dated October 15, 1998, the public version of which
is on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of the Main Commerce
building (CRU-Public File).
Separate Rates Determination
To establish whether a company operating in a state-controlled
economy is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a separate rate,
the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test
established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May
6, 1991) (Sparklers), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under this policy,
exporters in non-market economies (NMEs) are entitled to separate,
company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to export
activities. Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de
jure absence of government control over export activities includes: (1)
An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments
decentralizing control of companies; and, (3) any other formal measures
by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence
of government control over exports is based on four factors: (1)
Whether each exporter sets its own export prices independently of the
government and without the approval of a government authority; (2)
whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes
independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing
of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and
sign contracts and other agreements; and, (4) whether each exporter has
autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management.
(See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22587 and Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589.)
In each of the previous administrative reviews of the antidumping
duty order on HSLWs from the PRC, covering successive review periods
from October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1996, we determined that ZWG
merited a separate rate. We have found that the evidence on the record
of this review also demonstrates an absence of government control, both
in law and in fact, with respect to ZWG's export activities according
to the criteria identified in Sparklers, and an absence of government
control with respect to the additional criteria identified in Silicon
Carbide. Therefore, we have continued to assign ZWG a separate rate.
Export Price
Because ZWG sold the subject merchandise to unaffiliated purchasers
in the United States prior to importation into the United States and
Constructed Export Price methodology is not otherwise indicated, we
have used export price in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act.
We calculated export price based on the f.o.b. price to
unaffiliated purchasers. From this price, we deducted amounts for
foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling. We valued these
deductions using surrogate country cost data. We selected India as the
surrogate country for the reasons explained in the ``Normal Value''
section of this notice.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production methodology
if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME, and (2) the
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department has treated the PRC as an NME in all
previous antidumping cases. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME shall
remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of
the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this
review. Moreover, parties to this proceeding have not argued that the
PRC HSLWs industry is a market-oriented industry (MOI) and,
consequently, we have no basis to determine that the information would
permit the calculation of NV using PRC prices or costs. Therefore, we
calculated NV based on factors of production (FOP) in accordance with
sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).
Under the FOP methodology, we are required to value the NME
producer's inputs in a comparable market economy country that is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise. We determined that
India is at a comparable level of economic development to that of the
PRC. Also, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Therefore, for this review, we have used Indian prices to value the FOP
except where the factor was purchased from a market economy supplier
and paid for in a market economy currency. (See Memorandum to Susan
Kuhbach from Jeff May, dated March 5, 1998, ``Certain Helical Spring
Lock Washers from the
[[Page 60301]]
PRC: Nonmarket Economy Status and Surrogate Country Selection,'' which
is on file in the CRU-Public File.)
We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India
which were: (1) Average non-export values; (2) representative of a
range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR;
(3) product-specific; and, (4) tax-exclusive. We valued the factors of
production as follows:
A meaningful amount of the input carbon steel wire rod was
purchased from the United Kingdom, a market economy supplier, and paid
for in a market economy currency. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), we
valued this factor using the price paid to the market economy supplier.
Thus, for carbon steel wire rod values, we used the average cost per
metric ton of carbon steel wire rod imported from the United Kingdom by
ZWG during the period of review. We made further deductions to account
for the freight costs incurred between the port and ZWG.
For the value of chemicals used in the production and
plating process of HSLWs, we used per kilogram values obtained from the
Indian publication Chemical Weekly and from the Monthly Statistics of
the Foreign Trade of India-Imports (MFTI). We adjusted these values,
where appropriate, to reflect inflation through the POR using the
Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as reported in the International Financial
Statistics published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We also
adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the
supplier and ZWG.
For labor, we used the regression-based wage rate for the
PRC in ``Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,'' located on the
Internet at http://www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/records/wages/.
Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per
capita GDP's, 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations
requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source for the
regression based-wage rates is ``Expected Wages of Selected NME
Countries--1995 Income Data,'' 1996 Year Book of Labour Statistics,
International Labour Office, (Geneva: 1996) Chapter 5B: Wages in
Manufacturing.
For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative
expenses (SG&A), and profit values, we used information from the
January, 1997 Reserve Bank of India Bulletin for the Indian industry
group ``Processing and Manufacturing: Metals, Chemicals, and Products
Thereof.'' From this information, we were able to determine factory
overhead as a percentage of the total cost of manufacturing, SG&A as a
percentage of the total cost of manufacturing, and the profit rate as a
percentage of the cost of manufacturing plus SG&A.
For packing materials, we used the per kilogram values
obtained from the MFTI. Where necessary, we adjusted these values to
reflect inflation through the POR using the WPI published by the IMF.
We also adjusted them to account for freight costs incurred between the
PRC supplier and ZWG.
To value coal, we used a per kilogram value obtained from
the MFTI. We adjusted this value to reflect inflation through the POR
using the WPI published by the IMF. We also adjusted this amount to
account for freight costs incurred between the supplier and ZWG.
To value electricity, we used the price of electricity for
1995 reported in the 1995 Confederation of Indian Industries Handbook
of Statistics. We adjusted the value to reflect inflation through the
POR using the WPI published by the IMF.
To value water, we used the November, 1993 Water Utilities
Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region published by the Asian
Development Bank. We adjusted the value to reflect inflation through
the POR using the WPI published by the IMF.
To value foreign brokerage and handling, we used
information reported in the Less Than Fair Value Investigation of
Stainless Steel Bar from India in a document dated April 22, 1994.
To value truck freight, we used a rate derived from the
April 20, 1994 issue of The Times of India. We adjusted the rate to
reflect inflation through the POR using the WPI published by the IMF.
To value rail freight, we used rate information published
by the Indian Railway Conference Association for rates in force from
April 1, 1995. We adjusted the rate to reflect inflation through the
POR using the WPI published by the IMF.
To value shipping freight, we used a rate reported to the
Department in the August, 1993 cable from the U.S. Embassy in India
which was submitted for and used in the Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the
People's Republic of China, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993). We
adjusted the rate to reflect inflation through the POR using the WPI
published by the IMF.
For a complete description of the factor values used, see
``Memorandum to File: Factor Values Used for the Preliminary Results of
the Fourth Administrative Review,'' dated November 2, 1998 (Factors
Memorandum) a public version of which is available in the Public File.
Additionally, we adjusted the reported figure for indirect labor
based on our findings at verification, see ``Memorandum to File:
Calculation Notes for Preliminary Results,'' dated November 2, 1998, a
public version of which is available in the Public File.
Preliminary Results of Review
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin
exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zhejiang Wanxin Group Co., Ltd.... 10/01/96-09/30/97 4.29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224. Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of
publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held
approximately 44 days after the publication of this notice. Interested
parties may submit written comments (case briefs) within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments (rebuttal
briefs), which must be 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 by the parties, within 120 days of publication of
these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b) (1), we have calculated an importer-
[[Page 60302]]
specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales
made during the POR to the total value of the subject merchandise
entered during the POR. In order to estimate the entered value, we
subtracted international movement expenses from the gross sales value.
This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of that specific
importer made during the POR. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of HSLWs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For ZWG, which has
a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific
rate established in the final results of this administrative review;
(2) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC
rate, which is 128.63 percent, which is the All Other PRC
Manufacturers, Producers and Exporters rate from the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring
Lock Washers from the PRC, 58 FR 48833 (September 20, 1993); and (3)
for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that
exporter.
These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also 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 doubled antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: November 3, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-29995 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P