[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8261]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-421-806]

 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Antidumping Duty Investigation of 
Color Negative Photographic Paper and Chemical Components Thereof From 
the Netherlands

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Beck, Office of Antidumping 
Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone (202) 482-3464.

Preliminary Determination

    We preliminarily determine that color negative photographic paper 
and chemical components thereof (CNPP) from the Netherlands are being, 
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, 
as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act). The estimated margin is shown in the ``Suspension of 
Liquidation'' section of this notice.

Case History

    Since the initiation of this investigation on September 20, 1993, 
(58 FR 50331, September 27, 1993), the following events have occurred.
    On October 15, 1993, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) 
issued an affirmative preliminary determination.
    On November 19, 1993, the Department presented an antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Fuji Photo Film B.V. (respondent).
    Respondent submitted its responses to the Department's sales and 
cost questionnaires in December 1993 and January 1994. The Department 
issued deficiency sales and cost questionnaires in February 1994. 
Respondent submitted its responses to these deficiency questionnaires 
in February and March 1994.
    On December 14, 1993, respondent submitted a statement in support 
of the Department postponing the preliminary determination in this 
investigation. On December 23, 1993, Eastman Kodak Company (petitioner) 
requested that the Department postpone the preliminary determination 
until March 29, 1994, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.15(c) (1993). The 
Department granted this request on January 6, 1994 (59 FR 1927, January 
13, 1994).
    On March 2, 1994, petitioner submitted an allegation that critical 
circumstances exist with respect to imports of CNPP from the 
Netherlands. On March 4, 1994, the Department sent respondent a 
critical circumstances questionnaire. On March 18, 1994, respondent 
submitted its response to the questionnaire.
    On March 8, 1994, respondent requested that, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.20(b), in the event of an affirmative preliminary 
determination, the Department postpone the final determination.

Scope of Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, color negative photographic 
paper is all sensitized, unexposed silver-halide color negative 
photographic paper, whether in master rolls, smaller rolls or sheets. 
Chemical components include sensitized (whether chemically or 
spectrally) and unsensitized emulsions, couplers, and coupler 
dispersions used in making color negative photographic paper.
    Unsensitized silver-halide emulsions consist of silver-halide 
microcrystals dispersed in a gelatin and water matrix after preparation 
and washing to remove soluble salts. Unsensitized emulsions are 
naturally sensitive to blue and ultraviolet light, but cannot 
efficiently convert light to form a color image without further 
processing. Sensitized emulsions have been treated to increase their 
sensitivity across the entire spectrum and/or treated by the addition 
of spectral sensitizing dyes to make the emulsions selectively 
sensitive to specific wavelengths of light. A coupler is a colorless, 
water-insoluble chemical capable of reacting with a silver-halide 
development product to form a dye. A coupler dispersion consists of a 
coupler dispersed in a water-gel solution, and may contain organic 
solvents, chemicals to stabilize the coupler and other substances.
    Specifically excluded from this investigation are all paper and 
chemical products not used in the silver halide process which are used 
in other imaging technologies. Products outside the scope include toner 
and developer chemicals used in electrostatic or indirect imaging 
processes (e.g., xerography), products used in laser printing, and 
instant photography products.
    Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are paper that is 
designed exclusively for use in graphic arts proofing equipment and 
does not exceed 160 microns in thickness, and emulsions classified 
under subheading 3707.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS) that are used in the manufacture of monochrome 
graphic arts film or paper that are not used in the production of color 
negative photographic paper.
    The color negative photographic paper subject to this investigation 
is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.3030 and 
3703.20.3030. Emulsions are currently classifiable under HTSUS 
subheadings 3707.10.0000 and 3707.90.3000. Couplers and coupler 
dispersions are currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 
3707.90.3000, 3707.90.6000, 2933.19.3000, 2933.90.2500 and 
2934.90.2000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope 
of this investigation is dispositive.
    To avoid suspension of liquidation of non-subject chemicals, those 
items entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above, which are not 
for use in the color negative photographic paper production process, 
must be accompanied by an importer's declaration to the Customs Service 
to that effect.
    In order to be excluded from the suspension of liquidation ordered 
in this notice, all sensitized (whether chemically or spectrally) and 
unsensitized emulsions, couplers, and coupler dispersions entered into 
the United States must be accompanied by an importer's declaration to 
the Customs Service to the effect that they are not for use in the 
color negative photographic paper production process and will not be 
used in the color negative photographic paper production process.
    On February 18, 1994, petitioner and respondent submitted comments 
on whether the chemical components are in the same class or kind of 
merchandise as color negative photographic paper. Petitioner argues 
that the subject merchandise constitutes one class or kind of 
merchandise, whereas respondent argues that the merchandise included in 
the scope of investigation constitutes two classes or kinds of 
merchandise. We determined that color negative photographic paper and 
the chemical components constitute one class or kind of merchandise 
(see March 24, 1994, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to 
Barbara R. Stafford). We based our determination on the criteria set 
forth in Diversified Products v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883 (1983) 
and Kyowa Gas Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 582 F. 
Supp. 887 (1984).

Period of Investigation (POI)

    We initiated this investigation using a six-month POI from March 1, 
1993, through August 31, 1993. On October 13, 1993, petitioner 
requested that the Department expand the POI. We expanded the POI in 
order to capture U.S. shipments made pursuant to an October 1, 1991, 
contract with the single-largest unrelated purchaser (see December 30, 
1993, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. 
Stafford). We instructed respondent to submit foreign sales information 
of the subject merchandise for the month of November 1991 to be the 
basis for the foreign market value (FMV) comparison to the U.S. 
shipments made pursuant to the long-term contract (see January 17, 
1994, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. 
Stafford).

Such or Similar Comparisons

    In this investigation, we have examined sales of color negative 
photographic paper; we have not examined sales of chemical components 
because respondent did not make such sales during the POI (see October 
22, 1993, memorandum from James Maeder to David Binder). We have 
determined for purposes of the preliminary determination that the color 
negative photographic paper covered by this investigation comprise a 
single category of ``such or similar'' merchandise. Respondent reported 
products that are identical according to the Department's matching 
criteria but have minor cost differences based on the emulsions 
contained in each product. For purposes of the preliminary 
determination, we are treating these products as identical and are 
making no adjustments for differences in merchandise between the 
products as claimed by respondent in accordance with 19 CFR 353.57. 
This is because respondent failed to provide a narrative description 
for its adjustments for differences in merchandise that explains the 
exact nature, source, and size of each difference. We have instructed 
the respondent to submit a thorough description of its adjustments for 
differences in merchandise so that these adjustments can be considered 
for use in the final determination (see February 23, 1994, decision 
memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).

Fair Value Comparisons/Multinational Corporation Provision

    In its petition, Kodak alleged that all of the criteria for 
invoking the multinational corporation (MNC) provision have been met. 
To determine whether sales of CNPP from the Netherlands to the United 
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States 
price (USP) to the appropriate FMV as required by the MNC provision.
    The MNC provision, contained in section 773(d) of the Act, requires 
the Department to determine if the following three criteria are met:
    (1) Merchandise exported to the United States is being produced in 
facilities which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a 
person, firm or corporation which also owns or controls, directly or 
indirectly, other facilities for the production of such or similar 
merchandise which are located in another country or countries;
    (2) The sales of such or similar merchandise by the company 
concerned in the home market of the exporting country are nonexistent 
or inadequate as a basis for comparison with the sales of the 
merchandise to the United States; and,
    (3) The FMV of such or similar merchandise produced in one or more 
of the facilities outside the country of exportation is higher than the 
FMV of such or similar merchandise produced in the facilities located 
in the country of exportation. (In this comparison, we must adjust the 
FMVs for any differences between the costs of production in the two 
countries (including taxes, labor, materials and overhead), pursuant to 
section 773(d) of the Act).
    If the above criteria are met, then the MNC provision instructs the 
Department to compare USP to the FMV of such or similar merchandise 
produced in one or more facilities outside the country of exportation.
    Regarding the first criterion, Fuji Photo Film B.V. is wholly owned 
by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. in Japan. Further, Fuji Photo Film Co., 
Ltd. produces the subject merchandise in Japan. Thus, Fuji Photo Film 
B.V. meets the first criterion.
    Regarding the second criterion, we compared the volume of home 
market sales of color negative photographic paper to the volume of 
third country sales of color negative photographic paper, in accordance 
with section 773(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.48(a), in order to 
determine whether there were sufficient sales of color negative 
photographic paper in the home market to compare to sales of color 
negative photographic paper to the United States. We found that the 
Netherlands home market was not viable for comparison to sales to the 
United States (see January 11, 1994, memorandum from Richard W. 
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
    We determined, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.49, that Germany is the most 
appropriate third country market for purposes of the comparison of FMVs 
under the MNC provision because:
    (1) Germany is the largest single third country market;
    (2) The type of merchandise sold in Germany is more similar to 
Dutch exports of color negative photographic paper to the U.S. than the 
type of merchandise sold elsewhere; and
    (3) The channels of distribution in Germany are most similar to 
those for color negative photographic paper from the Netherlands sold 
in the United States (see December 30, 1993, memorandum from Richard W. 
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
    Regarding the third criterion, we compared German and Japanese 
FMVs. To calculate the FMVs, we first compared the German and Japanese 
prices to U.S. price (see the ``Foreign Market Value'' section of this 
notice for a complete description of how we calculated the German and 
Japanese FMVs).
    Once we had calculated the two FMVs, we calculated a comparison 
adjustment for each product-specific FMV to determine whether any of 
the observed differences in value between the FMV of products produced 
in Japan and the FMV of products produced in the Netherlands and sold 
in Germany were attributable to differences in costs of production. The 
comparison adjustment included the costs of materials, labor, fixed and 
variable overhead, general and administrative expense and interest 
incurred in producing the product.
    For the German adjustment, the Department relied on the submitted 
cost information except in the following instances where the costs were 
not appropriately quantified or valued:
    (1) We excluded income from investment grants as this generally 
relates to income tax credits which are not considered a production 
cost;
    (2) We did not include foreign exchange gains or losses resulting 
from sales transactions as they are not related to production costs; 
and,
    (3) We reallocated CNPP specific research and development costs to 
reflect the benefits experienced by facilities in Japan and the 
Netherlands.
    For the Japanese adjustment, the Department relied on the submitted 
cost information except in the following instances where the costs were 
not appropriately quantified or valued:
    (1) We excluded losses from the disposal of fixed assets as these 
costs did not appear to relate to the subject merchandise;
    (2) We did not include foreign exchange gains or losses resulting 
from sales transactions as they are not related to production costs;
    (3) We reallocated CNPP specific research and development costs to 
reflect the benefits experienced by facilities in Japan and the 
Netherlands; and,
    (4) We excluded the enterprise tax in our calculation of general 
and administrative expenses because this tax is based on income and is 
not considered a production cost.
    In calculating the FMVs, Japanese prices included a consumption tax 
and German prices did not. Thus, we adjusted the Japanese FMV by 
deducting the consumption tax.
    Next, we deducted the German comparison adjustment from the German 
FMV and the Japanese comparison adjustment from the Japanese FMV. We 
multiplied the resulting amount for each product by the quantity of 
U.S. merchandise to which the product was compared in order to provide 
for an equitable comparison. Finally, we aggregated the values. From 
these aggregated values, we determined that the Japanese value was 
higher than the German value. Thus, the third criterion for invoking 
the MNC provision has been met.
    Because all of the above criteria for the MNC provision have been 
met, we are required to base the FMV for the Netherlands on sales 
prices by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. in Japan (see the March 10, 1994, 
memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford for a further 
discussion of the Department's MNC methodology).

United States Price

    We based USP on exporter's sales price (ESP), in accordance with 
section 772(c) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to 
the first unrelated purchaser after importation into the United States. 
Respondent did not provide a revised sales listing for the foreign 
extended POI sales because of ambiguous language in our deficiency 
questionnaire regarding the due dates. Therefore, we have not 
considered the extended U.S. POI sale for purposes of the preliminary 
determination, but will do so for purposes of the final determination. 
Additionally, we determined that it is not necessary to examine U.S. 
further-manufactured sales from the Netherlands for purposes of this 
investigation (see January 17, 1994, memorandum from Richard W. 
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
    On March 21, 1994, respondent submitted clarifications regarding 
its response to section C of the Department's questionnaire regarding 
U.S. sales. Respondent requested that the Department recalculate a 
certain inland insurance expense and a certain indirect selling 
expense. This submission was received too late to be used for purposes 
of the preliminary determination; however, we will consider this 
submission in our final determination.
    Based on information submitted by respondent, we reclassified a 
certain movement expense as revenue, and added it to the U.S. gross 
unit price.
    We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates 
and for the following movement charges: foreign brokerage, foreign 
inland freight, marine insurance, ocean freight, U.S. brokerage and 
handling charges, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. inland 
insurance. We added an amount for duty drawback.
    We deducted commissions and direct selling expenses which include 
advertising, credit expenses, and a combination of promotional expenses 
which constitute other direct selling expenses. We recalculated U.S. 
imputed credit using the reported dates of shipment and payment because 
the amounts reported by the respondent did not consistently reflect the 
method described in the questionnaire response. We have adjusted USP 
for additional product preparation performed by certain parties after 
exportation.
    We also deducted indirect selling expenses which include those 
indirect selling expenses that Fuji-USA (respondent's principal related 
U.S. entity) incurred in its general sales activities, those indirect 
selling expenses that Fuji-Hunt (a U.S. entity related to respondent) 
incurred in its sales and marketing activities, foreign and U.S. pre-
sale warehousing expenses, inventory carrying costs, premiums for 
product liability insurance, and indirect selling expenses incurred in 
Japan.
    For purposes of the preliminary determination, we are accepting 
respondent's treatment of Fuji-USA's commissions paid to an unrelated 
party and Fuji-Hunt's commissions as direct selling expenses, and 
commissions paid to Fuji-USA's employees as indirect selling expenses. 
We treated all advertising costs as direct selling expenses because 
respondent reported that all advertising is directed at their 
customers' customers.
    We made an adjustment to USP for the consumption tax paid on the 
comparison sales in Japan. However, in Federal-Mogul Corporation and 
The Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-194 CIT (October 
7, 1993), the Court of International Trade prohibited us from applying 
a purely tax neutral margin calculation methodology. Accordingly, we 
made our tax methodology conform to the instructions of the CIT, and 
adjusted U.S. price for tax by multiplying the Japanese tax rate by the 
price of the U.S. merchandise at the point in the chain of commerce of 
the U.S. merchandise that is analogous to the point in the Japanese 
chain of commerce at which the Japanese government applies the 
consumption tax.
    In this investigation, the tax levied on the subject merchandise in 
Japan is three percent. We calculated the appropriate tax adjustment to 
be three percent of the price of the U.S. merchandise net of discounts 
reflected on the invoice at the time of sale (which, in this case, is 
the point in the chain of commerce of the U.S. merchandise, that is 
analogous to the point in the Japanese market chain of commerce at 
which the Japanese government applies the consumption tax). We then 
added this amount to the U.S. price. We also calculated the amount of 
the tax adjustment that was due solely to the inclusion of expenses in 
the original tax base that are later deducted from the price to 
calculate USP (i.e., three percent of the sum of any adjustments, 
expenses and charges that were deducted from the price of the U.S. 
merchandise). We reduced this tax adjustment to take into account the 
adjustment to U.S. price for duty drawback (i.e., three percent of the 
duty drawback amount that was excluded from the tax base). We deducted 
this amount after all other additions and deductions had been made. By 
making this additional tax adjustment, we avoid a distortion that would 
cause the creation of a dumping margin even when pre-tax dumping is 
zero.

Foreign Market Value

    As described in the ``Fair Value Comparisons/Multinational 
Corporation Provision'' section of this notice, we had to calculate 
FMVs in both Germany and Japan in order to make our MNC comparison. We 
calculated FMVs based on German and Japanese home market sales prices, 
pursuant to section 773(d) of the Act. Respondent did not provide a 
revised sales listing for the foreign extended POI sales because of 
ambiguous language in our deficiency questionnaire regarding the due 
dates. Therefore, we have not considered the extended U.S. POI sale for 
purposes of the preliminary determination, but will do so for purposes 
of the final determination.
    For German sales, we classified respondent's discounts and rebates 
to reflect the Department's standard definitions of discounts and 
rebates (i.e., a discount is a price concession before invoicing, 
whereas a rebate is a price concession after invoicing). We determined 
that certain discounts were, in fact, rebates, and were treated 
accordingly. Additionally, we recalculated credit expenses in Germany 
using the reported dates of shipment and payment.
    For Japanese sales, we excluded certain sales of control paper, 
hobby paper, crystal paper, and softech paper from our analysis because 
these sales were made outside of the ordinary course of trade due to 
the nature of the products and were made in insignificant quantities. 
We omitted error entries and inventory adjustment entries because these 
entries are not sales of CNPP, nor did respondent directly tie these 
entries to the pertinent sales in the CNPP database. We also dropped 
cancelling transactions as respondent stated that it could not identify 
the original transaction to which a specific cancellation entry 
applies. Finally, we excluded certain low-priced sales of CNPP in Japan 
because, despite a specific request to do so, respondent did not 
adequately explain the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, these 
low-priced sales.
    Additionally, for Japanese sales, we made no adjustment for those 
rebate programs where respondent did not identify in the database which 
customer actually received the rebate. Additionally, we disallowed any 
rebate not established before the filing of the petition. For one 
expense claimed as a rebate, we determined that the expense, although 
viewed as a direct selling expense to CNPP, was overstated through a 
misallocation of the costs; consequently, we did not make any 
adjustment for this expense, but will consider doing so subsequent to 
verification and further explanation. With regard to one promotional 
program reported as a direct selling expense, we did not make an 
adjustment to FMV because respondent failed to report the expense 
properly. Because respondent failed to report shipment dates, we were 
unable to recalculate credit expenses; thus, we made no adjustments for 
credit expenses. We treated all advertising costs as direct selling 
expenses because respondent reported that all advertising is directed 
towards the customers' customers.
    For Japan sales, we recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred 
in the Japanese home market by reallocating certain rebates and 
promotional programs as indirect selling expenses rather than as 
charges or direct selling expenses, respectively, because we found that 
respondent has misclassified these expenses. We classified product 
liability expenses as indirect selling expenses because respondent's 
explanations demonstrate that its liability policy is general in nature 
and not tied to specific sales. We also reclassified technical expenses 
as indirect selling expenses because respondent's documentation 
illustrates that these expenses relate to general long-term assistance, 
rather than customer- or sales-specific expenses.
    For both German and Japanese sales, we used the Department's 
current related party test, which considers differences in the level of 
trade, to determine whether sales to related customers were made on an 
arm's-length basis. For purposes of the preliminary determination, we 
considered a party as related to respondent in Japan whenever there was 
evidence of substantial ownership in, or contractual agreements 
constituting business control over, the party. See Appendix II to the 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina (58 FR 37077, July 9, 
1993) for more information on the Department's related party test. For 
both German and Japanese sales, we did not include in our analysis any 
sales to related customers that we determined were not at arm's length.
    We calculated German and Japanese FMVs based on delivered prices, 
inclusive of packing. We made deductions for discounts and rebates, 
where applicable. For purposes of the preliminary determination, we 
have treated all movement expenses as direct selling expenses. 
Therefore, in accordance with the decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-
NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, Slip Op. 
93-1239 (Fed. Cir., January 4, 1994), we made a circumstance-of-sale 
adjustment for foreign movement expenses.
    We further deducted from the Japanese FMV the appropriate direct 
selling expenses, including advertising expenses and warranty expenses. 
We deducted credit expenses from the German FMV.
    We deducted German and Japanese indirect selling expenses, 
including inventory carrying costs, technical services (Japan only), 
warehousing (Japan only), and product liability premiums (Japan only) 
from FMV, capped by the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and the 
U.S. commission amount.
    We deducted German and Japanese packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
    We included in FMV the amount of the consumption tax collected in 
the Japanese home market. We also calculated the amount of the tax that 
was due solely to the inclusion of expenses in the original tax base 
that are later deducted from home market price to calculate FMV (i.e., 
three percent of the sum of any adjustments, expenses, charges, and 
offsets that were deducted from the home market price). We deducted 
this amount after all other additions and deductions were made. By 
making this additional tax adjustment, we avoid a distortion that would 
cause the creation of a dumping margin even when pre-tax dumping is 
zero. In addition, we calculated a re-adjustment of the amount of tax 
to take into account the amount of packing expenses added to FMV (i.e., 
three percent of the packing expenses).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Verification

    As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the 
information used in making our final determination.

Critical Circumstances

    On March 2, 1994, petitioner alleged that ``critical 
circumstances'' exist with respect to imports of color negative 
photographic paper and chemical components thereof from the 
Netherlands. We will preliminary determine that critical circumstances 
exist in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act if we determine 
that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that:
    (A)(i) There is a history of dumping in the United States or 
elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of 
the investigation, or
    (ii) The person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was 
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the 
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its 
fair value, and
    (B) There have been massive imports of the class or kind of 
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively 
short period.
    Regarding requisite (A)(i) above, we normally consider whether 
there has been an antidumping order in the United States or elsewhere 
on the subject merchandise in determining whether there is a history of 
dumping. Regarding requisite (A)(ii) above, we normally consider 
margins of 25 percent or more for purchase price comparisons and 15 
percent or more for exporter's sales price comparisons as sufficient to 
impute knowledge of dumping. Because the preliminary estimated dumping 
margin for all exporters of color negative photographic paper and 
chemical components thereof from the Netherlands is in excess of 15 
percent, we can impute knowledge of dumping under section 
733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act.
    Under 19 CFR 353.16(f), we normally consider the following factors 
in determining whether imports have been massive over a short period of 
time:
    (1) The volume and value of the imports;
    (2) Seasonal trends (if applicable); and
    (3) The share of domestic consumption accounted for by imports.
    To determine whether or not there have been massive imports of 
CNPP, we compared export volumes for the six months subsequent to the 
filing of the petition to the six months prior to the filing of the 
petition. We found that exports of the subject merchandise from the 
Netherlands during the period subsequent to receipt of the petition had 
increased by an amount sufficient to categorize the imports as massive. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do 
exist.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, and with 19 CFR 
353.16(c), we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation 
of all entries of CNPP from the Netherlands, as defined in the ``Scope 
of Investigation'' section of this notice, that are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 
90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register.
    The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a 
bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margin, as shown below. 
The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further 
notice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
              Manufacturer/producer/exporter                  percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuji Photo Film B.V........................................       321.23
All Others.................................................       321.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the 
ITC of our determination.
    If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine 
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material 
injury to, a U.S. industry before the later of 120 days after the date 
of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final 
determination.

Postponement of Final Determination

    On March 8, 1994, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b), the sole 
respondent requested that, in the event of an affirmative 
determination, the Department postpone the final determination. We find 
no compelling reason to deny the request. Accordingly, we are 
postponing the date of the final determination until not later than 135 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

Public Comment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written 
comments in at least ten copies may be submitted by any interested 
party to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later 
than June 30, 1994, and rebuttal briefs no later than July 8, 1994. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if 
requested, to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on 
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing 
will be held on July 15, 1994, at 10 a.m. at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, room 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm the time, date, and place 
of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, room B-099, within ten days of the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Requests should 
contain:
    (1) The party's name, address, telephone number;
    (2) The number of participants; and
    (3) A list of the issues to be discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.38(b), oral presentations will be limited to the issues raised in 
the briefs.
    This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the 
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(f)) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).


    Dated: March 29, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-8261 Filed 4-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P