[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8611]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 11, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-008]
Color Television Receivers From the Republic of Korea;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration/
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners, the Department of
Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on color television receivers from the Republic of Korea. The
review covers exports of this merchandise to the United States during
the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993. Three companies
failed to respond to our questionnaire and received a rate based on the
best information available. For the remaining four companies, we have
preliminarily determined that there were no known shipments of the
subject merchandise during the period of review.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Wendy Frankel, Office of
Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 30, 1993, the Independent Radionic Workers of America, the
United Electrical Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, the International Union of Electronic, Electrical,
Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO, and Industrial Union
Department, AFL-CIO (the Unions), the petitioners in this proceeding,
requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
color television receivers (CTVs), complete or incomplete, from the
Republic of Korea (ROK) (49 FR 18336, April 30, 1984) in accordance
with 19 CFR 353.22(a). On May 27, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of initiation of this review which
covers seven manufacturers/exporters for the period April 1, 1992,
through March 31, 1993 (58 FR 30,767). The Department is now conducting
this review pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Tariff Act).
The petitioners requested that the Department review seven
manufacturers/exporters for the period April 1, 1992, through March 31,
1993. Four respondents, Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd. (Daewoo), Goldstar
Electronics Co., Ltd. (Goldstar), Samwon Electronics, Inc. (Samwon),
and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), indicated that they had no
sales during the period of review (POR). Three companies, Quantronics
Manufacturing Korea, Ltd. (Quantronics), Tongkook General Electronics,
Inc., and Cosmos Electronics Manufacturing Korea, Ltd., did not respond
to our requests for information. As the best information available
(BIA) under 776(c) of the Tariff Act, when a company fails to provide
the information requested in a timely manner, the Department considers
the company uncooperative and generally assigns to that company the
higher of (a) the highest rate assigned to any company in any previous
review, including the less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV), or (b)
the highest rate for a responding company with shipments during the
POR. Therefore, we have used the highest rate from the LTFV
investigation, which was 16.57 percent, in determining the margins for
these three companies for this review, because this rate is higher than
the highest rate in the current review.
Scope of Review
The products covered by this review include color television
receivers, complete and incomplete, from the ROK. The order covers all
CTVs regardless of tariff classification. During the POR, the subject
merchandise was classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item
numbers 8528.10.60, 8529.90.15, 8529.90.20 and 8540.11.00. The HTS item
numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product
coverage.
Preliminary Results of Review
Because four of the respondents stated they had no sales during the
POR, on June 24, 1993, the Department requested the U.S. Customs
Service (Customs) to confirm that there was no record of entries of the
subject merchandise from the ROK during the POR. We received no
affirmative responses from Customs.
On July 23, 1993, petitioners provided the Department with import
data from the Port Import-Export Reporting Service (PIERS) (a private
for-profit computerized data bank) and alleged that Samsung, Daewoo and
Goldstar ``exported'' to the United States CTVs from the ROK. The
information submitted by the petitioners included: Type of product
imported, product code, weight of cargo, cargo's number of units, date
of arrival, exporter's name and location, U.S.-based importer's name
and its location, point of origin, and the name of the U.S. port of
discharge. All three respondents, mentioned on the list, submitted
comments regarding petitioners' allegations.
Goldstar, in its August 17, 1993, comments, claimed that the PIERS
data bank is merely a ``compilation of manifests of vessels that
discharge cargo at U.S. commercial seaports.'' Additionally, Goldstar
pointed out that the submitted database does not contain the official
Customs entry information, lacks HTS classification, and does not
distinguish between the merchandise discharged at the U.S. seaport for
consumption entry into the U.S. and merchandise that is transshipped to
third country destinations. Despite the limited information, Goldstar
argues that it was able to determine that all the shipments listed in
PIERS by the petitioners were either: (1) Shipments of CTVs passing
through the U.S. commercial seaports without entry into the United
States; or (2) imports of printed circuits boards (PCBs) into the
United States that are not subject to the scope of the antidumping duty
order on CTVs from the ROK.
On September 1, 1993, Daewoo submitted a rebuttal to the
petitioners' allegations echoing Goldstar's concerns about the
inadequacy of the data submitted to the Department. Additionally,
Daewoo points out that frequently the PIERS listing shows as ``U.S.
based importer'' a freight forwarder or intermediate consignee rather
than an actual U.S. importer. Moreover, Daewoo claims that the review
of virtually all of its ``entries,'' submitted by the petitioners,
reveals final destinations of the cargo in third country markets such
as Mexico or Argentina.
On October 5, 1993, Samsung also responded to the petitioners'
allegations by pointing out that with the exception of one destination,
Saddle Brook, New Jersey, all of Samsung's other shipments were made to
third country markets. With regard to the Saddle Brook, New Jersey
destination, given the limited information, Samsung was not able to
determine whether any of the shipments represented covered merchandise
or were even destined for the U.S. market. Further, Samsung claims that
the PIERS listings offer insufficient information to link petitioners'
claims with Samsung's entry documents.
On February 25, 1994, the Department again requested information
from Customs as to whether any entries of the subject merchandise had
been made during the POR. On March 21, 1994, Customs responded with a
list of entries indicating that certain merchandise, under the covered
HTS item numbers, had entered the United States. The Department
provided this information to the respondents with a request for an
explanation as to the nature of these entries. On March 28, 1994, we
received information from each of the respondents supporting their
claims that the entries in question were of merchandise which is not
subject to the antidumping duty order on CTVs from the ROK. Respondents
certified that the entries consisted either of merchandise destined for
third country markets or contained television parts not covered by the
antidumping duty order.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Daewoo, Goldstar,
Samwon, and Samsung had no shipments of the subject merchandise during
the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993. The cash deposit
rates established in the final results of the prior administrative
review for those firms, published in the Federal Register on March 23,
1994 (59 FR 13700), will remain in effect for this review.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd................................. \1\1.23
Goldstar Electronics Co., Ltd............................... \1\0.00
Samwon Electronics, Inc..................................... \1\0.53
Cosmos Electronics Manufacturing Korea...................... 16.57
Quantronics Manufacturing Korea, Ltd........................ 16.57
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd................................ \1\0.37
Tangkook General Electronics, Inc........................... 16.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments; rate from previous review.
Case briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be
submitted no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to
issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed no later
than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice,
interested parties to this proceeding may request a disclosure and/or a
hearing. The hearing, if requested, will take place no later than 44
days after publication of this notice. Persons interested in attending
the hearing should contact the Department for the date and time of the
hearing.
The Department will subsequently publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written comments or a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to Customs
Service upon completion of this review.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed
companies will be those rates established in the final results of this
review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not
listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter
is not a firm covered in this review, a prior 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.
On March 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-
Mogul Corporation 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 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. Therefore, the ``all others'' rate will be 13.90 percent, the
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (49 FR 7620,
March 1, 1984).
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 of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR
353.22(c)(1993).
Dated: April 3, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-8611 Filed 4-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M