[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19420]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 9, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-008]

 

Color Television Receivers From the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY:  International Trade Administration/Import Administration/
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On April 11, 1994, the Department of Commerce published a 
notice of preliminary results of 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 determined that there were no known shipments of the 
subject merchandise during the period of review.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Only one party submitted comments. The final 
results remain unchanged from the preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 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 
covered seven manufacturer/exporters for the period April 1, 1992, 
through March 31, 1993 (58 FR 30,767).
    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). The companies, Quantronics 
Manufacturing Korea, Ltd. (Quantronics), Tongkook General Electronics, 
Inc., and Cosmos Electronics Manufacturing Korea, Ltd., did not respond 
to our requests for information. Thus, in accordance with section 
776(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act), the Department was 
required to use the best information available (BIA). Standard 
Department practice dictates that 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 
or the less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV), or (b) the highest 
rate for a responding company with shipments during the POR. See 
Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States. 996 F. 2nd. 1195, 1191-92 
(Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Krupp Stahl AG et al v. United States, 822 
F. Supp 789 (CIT May 26, 1993). 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 Daewoo, Goldstar, Samwon, and Samsung 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, manufactured by these four 
respondents, 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.
    In light of the petitioners' allegations, on February 25, 1994, the 
Department again requested information from Customs as to whether any 
entries of the subject merchandise, manufactured by these four 
companies, 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 manufactured by respondents, 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.
    On April 11, 1994, the Department published a notice of preliminary 
results of review (59 FR 17086). We gave interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Only one respondent, 
Goldstar, submitted comments, concurring with the Department's 
preliminary results.
    Subsequent to publication of the preliminary results, on May 23, 
1994, the petitioners requested a withdrawal of their request for 
review of Goldstar. Because Goldstar had no shipments during the POR, 
we accepted the withdrawal request and are terminating the review with 
regard to Goldstar in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). Goldstar's 
rate from the prior review will remain in effect. The final results 
with regard to all other respondents have not changed from our 
preliminary results.
    The Department has now completed this administrative review 
pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act, as amended.

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.

Final Results of Review

    We have not changed the final results from those presented in the 
preliminary results of review. The final results for the reviewed firms 
are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                    Manufacturer/exporter                     percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd.................................    \1\0.90 
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.                             

    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 reivew, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established above; (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; and (4) 
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this 
or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 13.90 percent, 
which is the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation, 
as discussed below.
    On March 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in 
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (1993), and 
Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993), 
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 for this 
case will be 13.90 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the 
LTFV investigation (49 FR 7620, March 1, 1984).
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34.(d). Timely written notification 
of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 
353.22(c)(1993).

    Dated: July 30, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-19420 Filed 8-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M