[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5878]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 14, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-029]

 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
Fishnetting of Man-Made Fiber From Japan

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration, 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping finding 
administrative review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to a request by Yamaji Fishing Net Co., Ltd. (the 
respondent), the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted 
an administrative review of the antidumping finding on fishnetting of 
man-made fiber from Japan. This review covers one company and the 
period June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993. For these preliminary 
results, we applied the best information available (BIA). The review 
indicates the existence of dumping margins during the period.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kim Moore or Lisa Raisner, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-0090/3518.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On June 6, 1972, the Department of Treasury published in the 
Federal Register (37 FR 11560) the antidumping finding on fishnetting 
of man-made fiber from Japan. On June 7, 1993, the Department published 
a notice of opportunity to request review for the period June 1, 1992 
through May 31, 1993 (58 FR 31941). The respondent requested, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a) that we conduct an administrative 
review. We published the notice of initiation on July 21, 1993 (58 FR 
39007). The Department has now conducted that administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of fishnetting of man-
made fibers, not including salmon gill netting, from Japan. The 
merchandise is currently classified under item numbers 5608.11.00, 
5608.19.10, and 5608.90.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). The 
HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The 
written product description remains dispositive.
    This review covers entries of the subject merchandise by Yamaji 
Fishing Net Co., Ltd., during the period June 1, 1992 through May 31, 
1993.

Analysis

    Although Yamaji attempted to respond to all Department requests for 
information, the data submitted was unverifiable. In particular, at 
verification in Japan we discovered that approximately 40 percent of 
total home market sales had not been reported. Furthermore, because 
Yamaji did not prepare adequate source documentation, the Department 
was unable to complete sales traces to its satisfaction. Finally, 
significant discrepancies and errors in Yamaji's sales listings were 
identified, thereby making it impossible to verify several of Yamaji's 
claimed adjustments. For further information on the deficiencies in the 
respondent's questionnaire response, see the verification report filed 
on the record of this case.
    Because we have no data upon which we can reliably base our 
analysis, the Department must use BIA for its preliminary results of 
review.

Best Information Available

    In accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, we rely upon 
BIA in cases where a party refuses or is unable to produce information 
requested in a timely manner and in the form required, or otherwise 
significantly impedes proceedings. The Department generally uses a two-
tiered approach in its choice of BIA. For uncooperative respondents or 
respondents which substantially impede the proceedings (``first 
tier''), the Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate for any 
company from the original investigation or prior administrative review 
or (2) the highest rate found in the current review for any company. 
For respondents which attempt to cooperate (``second tier''), the 
Department uses the higher of (1) the highest rate ever applicable to 
the firm for the subject merchandise or (2) the highest calculated rate 
in the current review for any firm (see Antifriction Bearings (Other 
than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58 
FR 39729, July 26, 1993).
    As outlined above, the second-tier BIA rate should be applied, 
since Yamaji was essentially cooperative. Accordingly, we will continue 
to apply Yamaji's previous rate of 18.30 percent, which is both the 
highest rate ever applicable to the firm for the subject merchandise 
and the highest rate in the proceeding (see Fishnetting of Man-Made 
Fibers from Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of 
Antidumping Finding, 56 FR 49457, September 30, 1991).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that a margin 
exists for the period June 1, 1992 through May 31, 1993, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                    Manufacturer/exporter                        margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yamaji Fishing Net Co., Ltd...................................     18.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date 
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days 
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after 
the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case 
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs 
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those 
comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the 
Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective, 
upon publication of the notice of final results of this administrative 
review, for all shipments of the subject merchandise from Japan that 
are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed company will be that established in the final results of this 
administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated 
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
their company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) 
if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original 
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 review, and, because the 
proceeding is governed by an antidumping finding, the cash deposit rate 
will be set equal to the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first 
administrative review, as discussed below.
    On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade, in Floral Trade 
Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Moqul Corporation 
and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83, decided 
that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can 
only be changed through an administrative review. The Department has 
determined that in order to implement these decisions, it is 
appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation (or that rate as amended for 
correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in 
proceedings governed by antidumping duty orders. In proceedings 
governed by antidumping findings, unless we are able to ascertain the 
``all others'' rate from the Treasury LTFV investigation, the 
Department has determined that it is appropriate to adopt the ``new 
shipper'' rate established in the first final results of the 
administrative review published by the Department (or that rate as 
amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation) 
as the ``all others'' rate for the purpose of establishing cash 
deposits in all current and future administrative reviews.
    Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping finding, and 
we are unable to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury 
LTFV investigation, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of the 
review will be 1.94 percent, the ``new shipper'' rate established in 
the first final results of the administrative review published by the 
Department (47 FR 28978, July 2, 1982).
    These deposit requirements, 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 353.26 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 notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22(c).

    Dated: March 4, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-5878 Filed 3-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M