federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6208 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / NoticesPetitioner responds that thesearguments are based on new facts notpreviously on the record and that onlyWafangdian’s argument warrantsconsideration by the Department.Petitioner notes that, whereasGuizhou Machinery and Henan arguethat the prefix is meaningless regardingidentification of certain models,Liaoning contends that the ‘‘IR’’ prefixdenotes that the numerical codefollowing it refers only to a cone and isof the utmost importance. Petitionerasserts that the argument that a prefix isunimportant and, therefore, to beignored or, conversely, that a prefix isof utmost importance constitutes factualinformation too late to be considered.Petitioner argues that neither it nor theDepartment has been able to consider orevaluate this information throughreference to other public factual dataplaced on the record. In any event,Petitioner argues the error in the CV theDepartment used is the fault of theindividual respondent and not a clericalerror on the part of the Department.Petitioner states that the same ratesthe Department used in the preliminaryresults should apply for the final results,except that, where BIA is used, it shouldrepresent the highest transaction rate.Department’s PositionWe disagree with Petitioner as to ourability to consider clerical errors ofrespondents after preliminary results.See NTN and Colombian Flowers. Wehave evaluated the respondents’ clericalerrors against the criteria set forth in ourresponse to Comment 26, and we havedetermined that these errors meet theconditions under which we acceptcorrections. We note that, with theexception of Wafangdian, all of therespondents who experienced thesemodel-matching problems wereexporters. In this case, we receivedidentifying model numbers from boththe factory, which reports the FOP data,and the exporter, which reports the U.S.sale. Conceivably, the two attachdifferent prefixes to the commonnumeric code.We compared record evidence amongdifferent companies as well as betweenrespondents’ FOP data and sales lists.We agree with respondents’ contentionthat these data allow us to comparesales of specific models withcorresponding CV figures. For sales ofcomponent parts, we have sufficientdata on the record to apply CV for thecorresponding part, and we have madethe proper adjustments for the finalresults.Comment 28CMC argues that the Departmentassigned the antidumping margincalculated for CMC incorrectly to acompany identified as ‘‘China NationalMachinery & Equipment Import &Export Corporation’’ (CMEC). CMCnotes that, in all documentation itsubmitted, the company referred toitself as CMC. CMC also contends thatthe administrative record shows that the0.13-percent margin the Departmentcalculated in the preliminary resultswas based on the sales and cost dataCMC submitted and that, in itsverification report and analysismemorandum in reference to thisrespondent, the Department identifiedthe company as CMC. Therefore, for thefinal results, CMC requests theDepartment correct its error.Department’s PositionWe agree with CMC. We incorrectlyidentified this respondent in thePreliminary Results due to a clericalerror. We verified data CMC submittedduring this review. The 0.13-percentpreliminary margin we calculatedpertained to sales by CMC. For thesefinal results of review, the final marginfor CMC is 0.00 percent and the noncooperativeBIA rate assigned to CMECand all other non-responding companiesis 25.56 percent.Comment 29Guizhou Machinery et al. note that,for the preliminary results, theDepartment assigned to non-responsivecompanies a margin of 57.86 percent.Respondents contend that such a marginis incorrect because it does not conformto the Department’s two-tiered BIAformula as articulated in the PreliminaryResults. Because the Departmentcalculated a higher rate for Wafangdian,respondents contend, the Departmenteffectively assigned a lower rate to nonresponsivecompanies than it assignedto cooperative respondents,undermining the purpose of the twotieredpolicy. Guizhou Machinery et al.request that, for the final results, theDepartment assign to any uncooperativerespondents the highest margincalculated for any respondent in thisreview or any prior segment of theproceeding.Department’s PositionAs a result of changes to ourcalculations, Wafangdian’s rate is 1.28percent. As noted in our response toComment 28, above, the uncooperativeBIA rate is 25.56 percent, which is thehighest rate ever determined in thisproceeding.Comment 30Premier contends that the Departmentbased its dumping margininappropriately on cooperative BIA forthe period of review. Premier also statesthat the specific rate the Departmentassigned to Premier was 75.87 percent,while the Department assigned 57.86percent to uncooperative respondents.Premier claims that, although theDepartment stated it was applying‘‘cooperative BIA’’ to Premier, thepractical effect of the preliminaryresults is to treat Premier as anuncooperative respondent. Premiernotes that the Department stated tworeasons for resorting to BIA: (1)Premier’s inability to provide FOP data,and (2) errors in Premier’s sales data.Premier claims that the verificationerrors were minor and contends that theDepartment itself did not consider thesereasons supportive of an uncooperativefinding.Premier states that it was unable toprovide certain FOP information to theDepartment because such informationresides with unrelated suppliers thatcompete with Premier. Respondentasserts that the Department’sapplication of BIA under thesecircumstances constitutes an abuse ofdiscretion since it amounts topenalizing a company for failing toprovide information it does not have.Premier notes that in the 1989–90review the Department did not disregardthe entire response, which lackedfactors data, and instead appliedcooperative BIA only to those U.S. salesfor which there was no identicalforeign-market match.Premier states that, while theverification report notes certaindiscrepancies in Premier’s data, thereport does not state that thediscrepancies were so significant towarrant complete rejection of Premier’sdata. Premier adds that some of theissues the Department cited as reasonsfor BIA were the result of Premier’sinability to provide data related to itssuppliers, e.g., that it was unable toidentify the producers of the bearings itsold to the United States. For the samereasons related to its inability to provideFOP data, Premier claims that it shouldnot be penalized. Premier states that itoften does not deal with the factory but,rather, with a PRC trading company.Under these circumstances, Premierargues, the Department’s decision totreat Premier as if it were an‘‘uncooperative’’ respondent isunwarranted. Premier claims that itresponded to every questionnaire andprovided the requested information thatwas available to it.