[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28693]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 21, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-057]

 

Replacement Parts for Self-Propelled Bituminous Paving Equipment 
from Canada; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative review

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioner, the Department of 
Commerce has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping 
finding on replacement parts for self-propelled bituminous paving 
equipment from Canada. The review period is September 1, 1990 through 
August 31, 1991. This review involves one manufacturer/exporter of this 
merchandise, the Allatt Paving Division of Ingersoll-Rand Canada Inc. 
(Allatt). We preliminarily determine the dumping margin for this period 
to be 11.04 percent. We invite interested parties to comment on these 
preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 21, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest or Kelly Parkhill, 
Office of Countervailing Compliance, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 19, 1991, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review'' (56 FR 47450) of the antidumping finding on 
replacement parts for self-propelled bituminous paving equipment from 
Canada for the period September 1, 1990 through August 31, 1991. On 
September 23, 1991, the petitioner, Blaw Knox Construction Equipment 
Co., requested an administrative review of the antidumping finding. We 
initiated the review on October 18, 1991 (56 FR 52254). The Department 
has now conducted this 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 this review are shipments of replacement parts 
for self-propelled bituminous paving equipment, excluding attachments 
and parts for attachments. This merchandise is currently classifiable 
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 4016.93.10, 
7315.11.00, 7315.89.50, 7315.90.00, 8336.50.00, 8479.99.00, 8481.20.00, 
8482.10.10, 8483.90.90, 8539.29.20, 8544.20.00, 8544.41.00, 8544.51.80, 
8544.60.20, and 9015.30.40. The HTS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.
    The review period is September 1, 1990 through August 31, 1991. 
This review involves one manufacturer/exporter of this merchandise, 
Allatt.

United States Price

    In calculating United States price (USP), the Department used 
purchase price (PP) and exporter's sales price (ESP), as defined in 
section 772 of the Tariff Act. For those sales made directly to 
unrelated parties prior to importation into the United States, we based 
the United States price on PP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the 
Tariff Act. Where sales to the first unrelated purchaser occurred after 
importation into the United States, we based USP on ESP, in accordance 
with section 772(c) of the Tariff Act.
    PP and ESP were based on the packed, f.o.b. prices to unrelated 
purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments, where applicable, 
for brokerage charges, U.S. and foreign inland freight, U.S. duties, 
and discounts. For ESP sales, we also deducted commissions to unrelated 
parties, credit, and indirect selling expenses.
    We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as 
outlined in Silicon Manganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994. There 
were no other adjustments claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    In calculating FMV, the Department used home market price, as 
defined in section 773 of the Tariff Act, because sufficient quantities 
of such or similar merchandise were sold in the home market to provide 
a basis for comparison. Home market price was based on the packed, 
f.o.b. company warehouse price in the home market. Where applicable, we 
made adjustments for discounts, inland freight, credit expenses, 
commissions, advertising expenses, packing expenses, and differences in 
merchandise. We adjusted FMV for taxes in accordance with our practice 
as outlined in Silicon Manganese from Venezuela, Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 
1994.
    In light of the CAFC's decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AD-NM-TX-FL 
Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13, F3d 398 (CAFC 
1994), the Department no longer can deduct home market movement charges 
from FMV pursuant to its inherent power to fill in gaps in the 
antidumping statute. We instead will adjust for those expenses under 
the circumstance-of-sale (COS) provision of 19 CFR 353.56 and the ESP 
offset provision of 19 CFR 353.56(b) (1) and (2), as appropriate, in 
the manner described below.
    When USP is based on PP, we only adjust for home market movement 
charges through the COS provision of 19 CFR 353.56. Under this 
adjustment, we capture only direct selling expenses, which include 
post-sale movement expenses and, in some circumstances, pre-sale 
movement expenses. Specifically, we will treat pre-sale movement 
expenses as direct expenses if those expenses are directly related to 
the home market sales of the merchandise under consideration. Moreover, 
in order to determine whether pre-sale movement expenses are direct, 
the Department will examine the respondent's pre-sale warehousing 
expenses, since the pre-sale movement charges incurred in positioning 
the merchandise at the warehouse are, for analytical purposes, 
inextricably linked to pre-sale warehousing expenses. If the pre-sale 
warehousing constitutes an indirect expense, the expense involved in 
getting the merchandise to the warehouse also must be indirect; 
conversely, a direct pre-sale warehousing expense necessarily implies a 
direct pre-sale movement expense.
    When USP is based on ESP, the Department makes COS adjustments for 
movement expenses in the same manner as in PP situations. Additionally, 
under the ESP offset provision set forth in 19 CFR 353.56(b) (1) and 
(2), we adjust for any pre-sale movement charges which are treated as 
indirect selling expenses.
    In the present case, because the company's warehousing expense 
could not be tied directly to either a particular customer or sales of 
the subject merchandise, it was reported and was treated as an indirect 
selling expense. Further, no pre-sale movement costs were claimed. 
Therefore, no COS adjustment has been made for these costs.
    In making the ESP offset, we deducted indirect selling expenses 
from foreign market value in an amount up to the amount of indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the U.S. market.
    When making comparisons with PP sales, we deducted home market 
commissions to unrelated parties, home market credit expenses, home 
market advertising, home market packing, and home market post-sale 
inland freight from FMV and added U.S. commissions, U.S. credit 
expenses, U.S. advertising, and U.S. packing to FMV.
    For those products sold in the United States for which there were 
no sales of identical or similar home market models, we calculated FMV 
based on CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We 
calculated constructed value by adding material and fabrication costs, 
selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. 
packing. Since actual SG&A expenses were greater than the statutory 
minimum of ten percent of the sum of materials and fabrication costs, 
we used actual SG&A expenses. We used the statutory minimum of eight 
percent for profit. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the 
margin for Allatt is 11.04 percent for the period September 1, 1990 
through August 31, 1991.
    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure and interested 
parties may request a hearing not later than ten days after publication 
of this notice. Interested parties may submit written arguments in case 
briefs on these preliminary results within 30 days of the date of 
publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case 
briefs, may be submitted seven days after the time limit for filing the 
case brief. Any hearing, if requested, will be held seven days after 
the scheduled date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Copies of case 
briefs and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in 
accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(e). Representatives of parties to the 
proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under 
administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the 
representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, 
but in no event later than the date the case briefs are due. The 
Department will publish the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or 
rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price and foreign market value may 
vary from the percentages stated above. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for 
all shipments of the subject merchandise from Canada entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication 
date, 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 merchandise 
exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but 
covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-value 
investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-
specific rate published in the final determination covering the most 
recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, previous reviews, or the original investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of this review, or 
if not covered in this review, the most recent review period or the 
original investigation; and (4) the ``all other'' rate will be 20.12 
percent. On May 25, 1993, the CIT in Floral Trade Council v. United 
States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and Federal Mongul Corporation and 
the Torrington Company v. United States, 839 F. Supp. 864 (CIT 1993), 
decided that once an ``all other'' rate is established, 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 original 
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
antidumping duty orders as the ``all others'' rate for cash deposits in 
all current and future administrative reviews.
    In proceedings governed by antidumping findings, unless we are able 
to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury less-than-fair-
value investigation, the Department has determined that it is 
appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first 
final results of 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 purposes 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 less-than-fair-value investigation, the Department has 
determined that it is appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate of 
20.12 percent established in the first final results published by the 
Department in the Federal Register on February 16, 1982 (47 FR 6681). 
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice 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 will 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, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) 
and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: November 11, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-28693 Filed 11-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P