federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6185Department’s PositionWe agree with Petitioner that weshould adjust ocean-freight costs usingthe U.S. producer-price index becauseocean-freight costs are based on U.S.rates in U.S. dollars. For the finalresults, we deflated the July 1996 oceanfreight-ratequotes from Maersk Inc.using the U.S. WPI to reflect the PORcosts.Comment 24Petitioner contends that theDepartment has understated the marineinsuranceexpense by applying aninsurance rate per ton applicable tosulfur dyes from India. Petitioner arguesthat insurance protects against lostvalue and that, if a container of bearingswere lost at sea, there is no basis tosuppose that payment for the loss of oneton of sulfur dyes would have anyrelationship to the value of the bearings.Petitioner adds that the Department’squestionnaire indicates that insurancepremiums are normally based on thevalue of the merchandise. Petitionerrecommends that the Departmentcalculate a marine-insurance factorbased on the ratio of the insurancecharge per ton of sulfur dye divided bythe value of sulfur dye per ton (based onU.S. Customs value) and apply thisfactor to the price of TRBs sold in theUnited States.Guizhou Machinery et al. respondthat it is not reasonable to assume thatthe difference in Indian marineinsurancerates applicable to sulfur dyesand TRBs can be measured accuratelysimply by comparing the difference inproduct values. Guizhou Machinery etal. further assert that Petitioner’sargument is based on customs valuesobtained from the Sulfur Dyes petition,information which has not beenpreviously submitted on the record forthe current review. Guizhou Machineryet al. state that the Department’sapproach of using the marine-insurancerates from the sulfur-dyes investigationis consistent with its calculations inother NME cases.Department’s PositionWe disagree with Petitioner withrespect to our use of the sulfur-dyesdata. We have relied on the publicinformation on marine insurance forsulfur dyes that we used for thepreliminary results, as these data are theonly public information available to us;further, we have used the same raterepeatedly for other PRC analyses. SeeFinal Results of Administrative Review:Certain Helical Spring Lock Washersfrom the PRC, 61 FR 41994 (August 13,1996) (Lock Washers), and TRBs IV–VIat 65537.Comment 25Guizhou Machinery et al. claim that,with respect to Guizhou Machinery andGuizhou Automotive, the Departmentdid not convert the charge for marineinsurance from rupees into U.S. dollarsand, therefore, this expense isoverstated. Guizhou Machinery andGuizhou Automotive explain that theDepartment calculated marine insuranceby multiplying the rate per kilogram bythe net weight of the bearing and thenadjusted for inflation, yielding a figurein rupees, which must be converted intoU.S. dollars in order to calculate a U.S.price. Guizhou Machinery and GuizhouAutomotive request that the Departmentconvert all marine-insurance rates inrupees to U.S. dollars.Additionally, Guizhou Machinery andGuizhou Automotive claim that theDepartment calculated the foreigninland-freightcharge incorrectly.Respondents explain that, for all othercompanies, the Department calculatedthis charge properly but, for GuizhouMachinery and Guizhou Automotive,the Department’s formula resulted in aninflated expense. Guizhou Machineryand Guizhou Automotive request thatthe Department correct this error for thefinal results.Petitioner agrees that the Departmentshould check its calculations and ensurethat amounts denominated in rupees areconverted into dollars and that it shouldapply the proper formula for inlandfreight.Department’s PositionWe agree with both parties. For thefinal results, we have corrected theseerrors.4. Facts AvailableComment 26Petitioner disagrees with theDepartment’s acceptance of Premier’sFOP data even though, in most cases,the data did not relate to themanufacturer whose merchandisePremier sold to the United States.Petitioner recommends the use of factsavailable to calculate Premier’s rate.Petitioner argues that there is noindication that Premier’s selectivereporting is representative of itssuppliers’’ actual experience, notingthat the questionnaire states that, if aproducer uses more than one facility toproduce subject merchandise, it mustreport the factor use at each location.Petitioner asserts that the Department’sacceptance of Premier’s selectiveresponses, as well as the use of othersurrogate producers’ costs when those ofPremier’s suppliers were not available,is contrary to the Department’s policyregarding the appropriate deposit ratefor unreviewed non-PRC exporters ofsubject merchandise from the PRC.Petitioner states that Premier and itssuppliers should not be allowed toselect the suppliers on the basis ofwhose data the Department willcalculate Premier’s margin.Petitioner states that only Premierknows the efforts it made to supply thisinformation and, moreover, Premier’sefforts are irrelevant because the focusshould be on the efforts Premier’ssuppliers made. Petitioner contendsthat, since certain suppliers refused tocome forward and claim eligibility for aseparate rate, the Department mustpresume them to be part of the singleentity to which the PRC rate appliesand, as non-responsive companies, theyare subject to the use of adverse factsavailable. Petitioner adds that allcompanies are conditionally covered inthis review and are subject to the PRCrate.Finally, Petitioner argues that theDepartment cannot justify its approachon practical grounds. In this regard,Petitioner contends that, although theDepartment states there is littlevariation in factor-utilization ratesamong the TRB producers from whom ithas FOP data, the available data reflectsonly a small number of PRC producersand the preliminary results showmargins ranging from zero to 129.97percent.Premier responds that, despite itsrepeated efforts to obtain FOP datadirectly from its PRC-based suppliers, itwas unsuccessful in obtaining this data.Premier claims that it has been asresponsive and cooperative as possiblewith the Department in the course ofthis review. Premier explains that, giventhis lack of supplier data for certain U.S.sales, it analyzed the record to identifyFOP data that could be used in place ofthe data its suppliers had refused tosupply, and it submitted FOP data formodels that constituted 94 percent of itsPOR U.S. sales as follows: for 69 percentof its U.S. sales, Premier provided FOPdata for the supplier from whomPremier purchased the merchandise; for25 percent of its U.S. sales, Premiersupplied data from other Chineseproducers. Premier states that,accordingly, it could not locate any FOPdata for only six percent of its U.S. PORsales and the Department was correct touse Premier’s U.S. sales and FOP datawhen calculating Premier’s dumpingmargin.Premier claims that it did not choosethe production facility from which to