Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
In response to a request by the Stainless Steel Cookware Committee (the Committee), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware from Korea. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
We preliminarily determine that certain manufacturers/exporters sold subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We invite interested parties to comment on the preliminary results. Parties who submit comments in this proceeding should also submit with the argument(s): (1) a statement of the issue(s) and (2) a brief summary of their argument (not to exceed five pages).
February 6, 2002.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald M. Trentham and Thomas F. Futtner, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482-6320 and (202) 482-3814, respectively.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
The Applicable Statute
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's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).Start Printed Page 5564
The Department published an antidumping duty order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking ware (cookware) from Korea on January 20, 1987 (52 FR 2139). On January 18, 2001, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on cookware from Korea (66 FR 4796) covering the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
On January 31, 2001, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the Committee (the petitioner), whose members are Regal Ware, Inc., The West Bend Company, New Era Cookware and Vita-Craft Corporation, requested that we conduct an administrative review of twenty-six specific manufacturers/exporters of cookware from Korea: Daelim Trading Co., Ltd. (Daelim), Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd. (Dong Won), Chefline Corporation, Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd., Namyang Kitchenflower Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd., Ssang Yong Ind. Co., Ltd., O. Bok Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Dong Hwa Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Il Shin Co., Ltd., Hai Dong Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Han II Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co., East One Co., Ltd., Charming Art Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd., Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd., Wonkwang Inc., Sungjin International Inc., Sae Kwang Aluminum Co., Ltd., Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Seshin Co., Ltd., Pionix Corporation, East West Trading Korea, Ltd., Clad Co., Ltd., and B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b), we published a notice of initiation of the review on February 28, 2001 (66 FR 12758).
On March 2, 2001, we issued Section A antidumping questionnaires to each of the twenty-six manufacturers/exporters listed above. In response to our request for information, Pionix Corporation, Namyang Kitchenflower Co., Ltd., and Dong Hwa Steel Co., Ltd., reported that they had no sales or shipments during the POR. Information on the record indicates that there were no entries of subject merchandise made by these manufacturers/exporters during the POR. Accordingly, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these manufacturers/exporters.
The following companies failed to respond to the Department's Section A questionnaire: Chefline Corporation, Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd., Ssang Yong Ind. Co., Ltd., O. Bok Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Il Shin Co., Ltd., Hai Dong Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Han II Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co., East One Co., Ltd., Charming Art Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd., Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd., Wonkwang Inc., Sungjin International Inc., Sae Kwang Aluminum Co., Ltd., Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., Seshin Co., Ltd., East West Trading Korea, Ltd., Clad Co., Ltd., and B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd. On January 4, 2002, we informed each of these companies that because they failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we may use facts available (FA) to determine their dumping margins. In response, the following manufacturers/exporters reported that they had no sales or shipments during the POR: Ssang Yong Ind., Co., Ltd., Poong Kang Ind. Co., Ltd., Sungjin International, Inc., Seshin Co., Ltd., O. Bok Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., Hai Dong Stainless Steel Co., Ltd., and Bae Chin Metal Ind. Co. Information on the record indicates that there were no entries of subject merchandise from these firms during the POR. Accordingly, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these manufacturers/exporters.
On April 2, 2001, Daelim and Dong Won responded to Section A of the antidumping questionnaire. On May 3, 2001, the Department issued Sections B, C and D of the Department's questionnaire to these two companies. Daelim and Dong Won filed responses to Sections B and C on June 18, 2001. On July 3, 2001, Daelim and Dong Won responded to Section D of the Department's questionnaire.
Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for issuing a preliminary determination in an administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary review within the statutory time limit of 245 days. On September 26, 2001, the Department published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in this case to January 30, 2002. See Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea: Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 49164 (September 26, 2001).
On November 2, 2001, the Department issued Section A through D supplemental questionnaires to Daelim and Dong Won. The responses to these supplemental questionnaires were received on November 30, 2001. On December 19, 2001, the Department issued an additional Section A through D supplemental questionnaire to these companies. The responses were submitted by the companies on January 11, 2002.
The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of Review
The merchandise subject to this antidumping order is top-of-the-stove stainless steel cookware from Korea. The subject merchandise is all non-electric cooking ware of stainless steel which may have one or more layers of aluminum, copper or carbon steel for
more even heat distribution. The subject merchandise includes skillets, frying pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double boilers, stock pots, dutch ovens, casseroles, steamers, and other stainless steel vessels, all for cooking on stove top burners, except tea kettles and fish poachers. Excluded from the scope of the order are stainless steel oven ware and stainless steel kitchen ware. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7323.93.00 and 9604.00.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
The Department has issued several scope clarifications for this order. The Department found that certain stainless steel pasta and steamer inserts (63 FR 41545, August 4, 1998), certain stainless steel eight-cup coffee percolators (58 FR 11209, February 24, 1993), and certain stainless steel stock pots and covers are within the scope of the order (57 FR 57420, December 4, 1992). Moreover, as a result of a changed circumstances review, the Department revoked the order on Korea in part with respect to certain stainless steel camping ware (1) made of single-ply stainless steel having a thickness no greater than 6.0 millimeters; and (2) consisting of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 quart saucepans without handles and with lids that also serve as fry pans (62 FR 3662, January 24, 1997).
Application of FA
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if any interested party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form or manner requested; (C) significantly impedes an antidumping investigation; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in making its determination.Start Printed Page 5565
Section 782(e) of the Act provides that the Department shall not decline to consider information deemed “deficient” under section 782(d) of the Act if: (1) the information is submitted by the deadline established for its submission; (2) the information can be verified;
(3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in providing the information and meeting the requirements established by the Department with respect to the information; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties
As stated above, on March 2, 2001, we issued Section A questionnaires to twenty-six manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The following companies failed to respond to the Department's Section A questionnaire: Chefline Corporation, Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd., Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd., Il Shin Co., Ltd., Han II Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., East One Co., Ltd., Charming Art Co., Ltd., Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd., Wonkwang Inc., Sae Kwang Aluminum Co., Ltd., Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd., East West Trading Korea, Ltd., Clad Co., Ltd., and B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd. On January 4, 2002, we informed each of these companies that because they failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we may use FA to determine their dumping margins.
Because these 14 companies failed to provide any of the necessary information requested by the Department, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we must establish the margins for these companies based totally on facts otherwise available.
Selection of Adverse FA (AFA)
In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. See e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-20 (October 16, 1997). These 14 companies were given two opportunities to respond, and did not. Moreover, these companies failed to offer any explanation for their failure to respond to our questionnaires. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the Department to assume that these companies possessed the records necessary for this review; however, by not supplying the information the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. As these 14 companies have failed to cooperate to the best of their ability, we are applying an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As AFA, we have used 31.23 percent, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of this proceeding. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Stainless Steel Cookware from Korea, 51 FR 42873 (November 26, 1986) (Final LTFV Determination).
Corroboration of Information
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination from the less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record.
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary information is defined as “[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) and 19 CFR 351.308(d).
The SAA further provides that the term “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value (see SAA at 870). Thus, to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used.
The rate used as AFA in this segment was originally calculated using verified information from the investigative segment of this proceeding. See Final LTFV Determination. The only source for calculated margins is administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as AFA a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. Furthermore, we have no new information that would lead us to reconsider the reliability of the rate being used in this case.
As to the relevance of the margin used for AFA, the courts have stated that “[b]y requiring corroboration of adverse inference rates, Congress clearly intended that such rates should be reasonable and have some basis in reality.” F.Lli De Cecco Di Filippo Fara S. Martino S.p.A., v. U.S., 216 F.3d 1027, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The rate selected is the rate currently applicable to certain companies, including 10 of these 14 companies. See Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From the Republic of Korea: Final Results and Rescission, in Part, of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 45664 (August 29, 2001) (Final Results). In determining a relevant AFA rate, the Department assumes that if the non-responding parties could have demonstrated that their dumping margins were lower, they would have participated in this review and attempted to do so. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190-91 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, given these 14 companies' failure to cooperate to the best of their ability in this review, we have no reason to believe that their dumping margins would be any less than the highest calculated rate in this proceeding. This rate ensures that they do not benefit by failing to cooperate fully. Therefore, we consider the rate of 31.23 percent relevant and appropriate to use as AFA for the non-responding parties.
To determine whether sales of cookware from South Korea to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to the NV for Daelim and EP and constructed export price (CEP) to the NV for Dong Won, as specified in the EP, CEP and NV sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual EP and CEP transactions.
Where Daelim and Dong Won sold merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, we used EP, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, as the price to the United States. For both respondents, we calculated EP using the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States (the starting price).
We made deductions from the starting price amounts for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Movement expenses included, where appropriate, brokerage and handling, international freight, and marine insurance, in accordance with Start Printed Page 5566section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We added duty drawback received on imported materials, where applicable, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
For Dong Won, we calculated CEP, in accordance with subsection 772(b) of the Act, for those sales to unaffiliated purchasers that took place after importation into the United States. We based CEP on the packed FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions for discounts. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Movement expenses included foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. Customs duties, and U.S. inland freight. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs, and other indirect selling expenses. Also, we made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Further, we added duty drawback received on imported materials, where applicable, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. Since Daelim's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based NV on home market sales. Because Dong Won's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was less than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was not viable. Therefore, we have based NV for Dong Won on third country sales in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. Because Dong Won's aggregate volume of sales of the foreign like product in Canada was more than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, we used sales to Canada as the third country comparison sales. As in the preceding segment of this proceeding, the Department notes that Canada was Dong Won's largest third country market for cookware in terms of both value and quantity and the cookware that Dong Won exported to Canada was more similar to the subject merchandise exported to the United States than the cookware exported to other comparison markets. See Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea: Preliminary Results and Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 11259 (February 23, 2001).
2. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis
The Department disregarded certain sales made by Daelim and Dong Won during the previous administrative review because we found that these sales failed the cost test. See Final Results. Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, this provides reasonable grounds to believe or suspect in this review segment that Daelim and Dong Won made sales in the home or third country markets at prices below the COP. Consequently we initiated a COP inquiry with respect to both Daelim and Dong Wong and conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated, respectively, COP based on the sum of Daelim and Dong Won's cost of materials and fabrication (COM) for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A, including financial expense, and packing costs. For the preliminary results, we relied on Daelim's and Dong Won's submitted information without adjustment.
B. Test of Foreign Market Sales Prices
We compared COP to foreign market sale prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to disregard foreign market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to foreign market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts and rebates, and selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities. Where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. Because we compared prices to POR or fiscal year average costs, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
We found, looking at Dong Won's third country market sales and Daelim's home market sales, that both made sales at below COP prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities. Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, we excluded these sales from our analysis and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the relevant foreign markets meeting the description in the “Scope of the Review” section of this notice, above, for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the foreign markets made in the ordinary course of trade (i.e., sales within the contemporaneous window which passed the cost test), we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Further, as in the preceding segment of this proceeding, merchandise was considered “similar” for purposes of comparison only if it is of the same “product type,” (i.e., (1) vessels or (2) parts). Among merchandise which was identical on the basis of “product type,” we then selected the most “similar” model through a hierarchical ranking of the remaining 11 product characteristics Start Printed Page 5567listed in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire and application of the DIFMER test. If there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the foreign market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the constructed value (CV) of the product sold in the U.S. market during the comparison period. For a further discussion of the Department's product comparison methodology, see Final Results and accompanying Decision Memo at Comment 1.
Level of Trade (LOT)
In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if the Department compares a U.S. sale at one LOT to NV sales at a different LOT, we will adjust the NV to account for the difference in LOT if the difference affects price comparability as evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at the different LOTs in the market in which NV is determined.
Section 351.412(c)(2) of the Department's regulations states that the Secretary will determine that sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). To make this determination, the Department reviews such factors as selling functions, classes of customer, and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Different stages of marketing necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but differences in selling functions, even if substantial, are not alone sufficient to establish a difference in the LOT. Similarly, while customer categories such as “distributor” and “wholesaler” may be useful in identifying different LOTs, they are insufficient in themselves to establish that there is a difference in the LOT.
In determining whether separate LOTs actually existed in the foreign and U.S. markets for each respondent, we examined whether the respondent's sales involved different marketing stages (or their equivalent) based on the channel of distribution, customer categories, and selling functions (or services) offered to each customer or customer category, in both markets.
Dong Won reported third country sales through two channels of distribution for its Canadian sales. The first channel of distribution was direct sales with two customer categories (i.e., distributors/wholesalers and retailers). The second channel of distribution was also sales to the two customer categories listed above, but through Korean trading companies. As Dong Won performs essentially the same selling activities at the same degree for third country sales in both of these channels of distribution, we considered this one LOT for purposes of our antidumping analysis.
For the U.S. market, Dong Won reported both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, Dong Won reported the same channels of distribution and customer categories as those in the third country market (i.e., direct sales to distributors/wholesalers and retailers as well as direct sales to distributers/wholesalers and retailers through Korean trading companies). As Dong Won performs essentially the same selling activities at the same degree for EP sales in both channels of distribution, we consider this one LOT. When we compared EP sales to third country sales, we determined that the EP sales were made at the same LOT as the third country sales. Accordingly, because we calculated NV at the same LOT as EP, no LOT adjustment is warranted. See 19 CFR 351.412 (b)(1).
Dong Won reported sales through its U.S. affiliate as CEP sales. For CEP sales, Dong Won performed fewer selling functions than in the third country. In addition, the differences in selling functions performed for third country and CEP transactions indicate that third country sales involved a more advanced stage of distribution than CEP sales. Our preliminary analysis demonstrates that the third country LOT is different from, and constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT because, after making the CEP deductions under section 772(d) of the Act, the third country LOT includes significantly more selling functions at a higher level of service with greater selling expenses than the CEP LOT. Therefore, the third country LOT is at a different, more advanced marketing stage than the CEP LOT.
Section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act provides for a CEP offset to NV when NV is established at a LOT which constitutes a more advanced LOT than the LOT of the CEP, but the data available do not provide an appropriate basis upon which to determine a LOT adjustment. As discussed above, in this case we found that there is only one LOT in the market in which NV is determined. Thus, it is not possible to determine a pattern of price differences on the basis of sales of the foreign like product by the producer. Furthermore, we do not have information on the record in this proceeding to determine a pattern of price differences on the basis of sales of different or broader product lines, sales by other companies, or any other reasonable basis. Therefore, we conclude that Dong Won is entitled to a CEP offset to NV. See Memorandum on LOT for Dong Won, dated January 31, 2002.
Daelim reported sales through one LOT, consisting of two channels of distribution for its home market sales. The first channel of distribution was sales through its affiliate in the home market, Living Star. The second channel of distribution was direct sales to home market customers. As Daelim performs the same selling activities at the same degree for home market sales in both channels of distribution, we consider this one LOT. See Memorandum on LOT for Daelim, dated January 31, 2002. Daelim reported only EP sales in the U.S. market. For EP sales, Daelim reported one LOT, consisting of one channel of distribution.
Upon review of the record we found that Daelim performed the same selling functions (i.e., inventory maintenance, technical advice, warranty services, freight & delivery arrangement, and advertising) at the same degree for EP sales as compared to home market sales. As such, we preliminarily find that there are no differences in the number, type, and degree of selling functions Daelim performs in the home market as compared to its EP sales. Therefore, because we are calculating NV at the same LOT as Daelim's EP sales, no LOT adjustment is warranted. See 19 CFR 351.412(b)(1).
Date of Sale
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the date of sale will normally be the date of the invoice, as recorded in the exporters's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business, unless satisfactory evidence is presented that the exporter or producer established the material terms of sale on some other date. For both foreign market and U.S. transactions, Daelim and Dong Won reported the date of the contract (i.e., purchase order) as the date of sale, i.e., the date when the material terms of sale are finalized. The respondents note that the purchase order confirms all major terms of sale--price, quantity, and product specification--as agreed to by the respondents and the customer. Because there is nothing on the record to indicate that there were changes in the material terms of sale between the purchase order (or revised purchase order) and the invoice, the Department preliminarily determines that the purchase order date is the most appropriate date to use for the date of sale.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV based on the respondents' respective COM employed Start Printed Page 5568in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A expenses, the profit incurred and realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the COM and G&A expenses as reported in the CV portion of respondents' questionnaire responses. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales portion of the respondents' questionnaire responses. For selling expenses, we used the average of the selling expenses reported for home market sales that survived the cost test, weighted by the total quantity of those sales. For profit, we first calculated, based on the home market sales that passed the cost test, the difference between the home market sales value and home market COP, and divided the difference by the home market COP. We then multiplied this percentage by the COP for each U.S. model to derive profit.
For those comparison products for which there were sales that passed the cost test, we based the respondent's NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in Korea (Daelim) or Canada (Dong Won), in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of trade in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
In accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we made adjustments to the foreign market price, where appropriate, for discounts and movement expenses (inland freight, brokerage and handling, and international freight). To account for differences in circumstances of sale between the foreign market and the United States, where appropriate, we adjusted the foreign market price by deducting foreign market direct selling expenses (including credit) and commissions and by adding U.S. direct selling expenses (including U.S. credit expenses). Where commissions were paid on foreign market sales and no commissions were paid on U.S. sales, we increased NV by the lesser of either: (1) The amount of commission paid on the foreign market sales or (2) the indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales. See 19 CFR 351.410(e).
With respect to both CV and foreign market prices, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for inland freight, inland insurance, and discounts. We also reduced CV and foreign market prices by packing costs incurred in the foreign market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. In addition, we increased CV and foreign market prices for U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act. We made further adjustments to foreign market prices, when applicable, to account for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made an adjustment for differences in circumstances of sale by deducting foreign market direct selling expenses and adding any direct selling expenses associated with U.S. sales not deducted under the provisions of section 772(d)(1) of the Act. Finally, in the case of Dong Wong, we made a CEP offset adjustment to account for comparing U.S. and foreign market sales at different LOTs.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000:
|Dong Won Metal Co., Ltd||1.90|
|Dae-Lim Trading Co., Ltd||1.73|
|Sam Yeung Ind. Co., Ltd||31.23|
|Kyung-Dong Industrial Co., Ltd||31.23|
|Il Shin Co., Ltd||31.23|
|Han II Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd||31.23|
|East One Co., Ltd||31.23|
|Charming Art Co., Ltd||31.23|
|Won Jin Ind. Co., Ltd||31.23|
|Sae Kwang Aluminum Co., Ltd||31.23|
|Hanil Stainless Steel Ind. Co., Ltd||31.23|
|East West Trading Korea, Ltd||31.23|
|Clad Co., Ltd||31.23|
|B.Y. Enterprise, Ltd||31.23|
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. All case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the case briefs are filed. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments would provide the Department with an additional copy of the public
version of any such comments on diskette. A hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or the first business day thereafter.
The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written comments, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. For Daelim and Dong Won, we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the entered value of sales used to calculate those duties. For all other respondents, the assessment rate will be based on the margin percentage identified above. We will direct Customs to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the importer-specific assessment rate is de minimis, i.e., less then 0.5 percent.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of top-of-stove stainless steel cooking ware from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of the final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem and,
therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (2) for exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous 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 reviews or the LTFV investigation, the cash Start Printed Page 5569deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the “all-others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These 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 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 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 this notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.Start Signature
January 31, 2002
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-2870 Filed 2-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S