[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31963]
[Federal Register: December 28, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-583-806]
Certain Small Business Telephone Systems and Subassemblies
Thereof From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David J. Goldberger or Lou Apple, Office of Antidumping Investigations,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-1769, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 4, 1992 (57 FR 57419), the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity
to Request an Administrative Review'' of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Certain Small Business Telephone Systems and Subassemblies from Taiwan
(December 11, 1989, 54 FR 50790). The review covers the period December
1, 1991 through November 30, 1992. In accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(a)(2), on December 28 and 30, 1992, respectively, Bitronic
Telecoms Co., Ltd., (``Bitronic'') and Tecom Co., Ltd. (``Tecom'') each
requested an administrative review of the antidumping order. The
Department initiated the administrative review on February 23, 1993 (58
FR 11026) and is conducting the administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
On March 17, 1993, Tecom withdrew its request for an administrative
review.
On February 17, 1994, the Department issued a questionnaire to
Bitronic. Bitronic submitted its questionnaire response on April 18,
1994. On May 20, 1994, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire which identified deficiencies in Bitronic's response.
Bitronic submitted its supplemental questionnaire response on June 23,
1994, and amendments to its supplemental response on July 8, 1994.
Partial Termination of Review
Because Tecom withdrew its request within 90 days of publication of
notice of initiation of the review, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(a)(5), we are terminating this review with respect to Tecom.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain small
business telephone systems and subassemblies thereof, currently
classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item
numbers: 8504.40.0004, 8504.40.0008, 8504.40.0010, 8504.40.0015,
8517.10.0020, 8517.10.0040, 8517.10.0050, 8517.10.0070, 8517.10.0080,
8517.30.2000, 8517.30.2500, 8517.30.3000, 8517.81.0010, 8517.81.0020,
8517.90.1000, 8517.90.1500, 8517.90.3000, 8517.90.4000, and
8518.30.1000. Although HTS item numbers are provided for convenience
and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Certain small business telephones and subassemblies thereof are
telephone systems, whether complete or incomplete, assembled or
unassembled, with intercom or internal calling capability and total
non-blocking port capacities of between two and 256 ports, and discrete
subassemblies designed for use in such systems. A subassembly is
``designed'' for use in a small business telephone system if it
functions to its full capability only when operated as part of a small
business telephone system. These subassemblies are designed as follows:
(1) Telephone sets and consoles, consisting of proprietary, corded
telephone sets or consoles. A console has the ability to perform
certain functions including: Answer all lines in the system, monitor
the status of other phone sets, and transfer calls. The term
``telephone sets and consoles'' is defined to include any combination
of two or more of the following items, when imported or shipped in the
same container, with or without additional apparatus: Housing, hand
set, cord (line or hand set), power supply, telephone set circuit
cards, or console circuit cards.
(2) Control and switching equipment, whether denominated as a key
service unit, control unit, or cabinet/switch. ``Control and switching
equipment'' is defined to include the units described in the preceding
sentence which consist of one or more circuit cards or modules
(including backplane circuit cards) and one or more of the following
items, when imported or shipped in the same container as the circuit
cards or modules, with or without additional apparatus: Connectors to
accept circuit cards or modules and building wiring.
(3) Circuit cards and modules, including power supplies. These may
be incorporated into control and switching equipment of telephone sets
and consoles, or they may be imported or shipped separately. A power
supply converts or divides input power of not more than 2400 watts into
output power of not more than 1800 watts supplying DC power of
approximately 5 volts, 24 volts, and 48 volts, as well as 90 volt AC
ringing capability.
The following merchandise is excluded from the scope of this order;
(1) Nonproprietary industry-standard (``tip/ring'') telephone sets and
other subassemblies that are not specifically designed for use in a
covered system, even though a system may be adapted to use such
nonproprietary equipment to provide some system functions; (2)
telephone answering machines or facsimile machines integrated with
telephone sets; and (3) adjunct software used on external data
processing equipment.
Preliminary Results of Review
While Bitronic responded to the Department's questionnaire and
deficiency letter, major deficiencies remained in its U.S. sales
response. These deficiencies included failure to report U.S. sales by a
related subsidiary and failure to report U.S. customs entry
information. Bitronic claimed that it was unable to report the
subsidiary's sales because the subsidiary is no longer in business.
Without complete U.S. sales reporting and customs entry data, the
Department is unable to calculate a proper assessment rate, or apply a
calculated rate to those sales which Bitronic reported.
Because Bitronic failed to adequately produce the information
requested, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have
preliminarily determined that the use of best information available
(BIA) is appropriate. Since Bitronic made substantial attempts to
submit information to the Department in a timely manner, we consider it
to be a cooperative respondent. Standard Department practice dictates
that for a cooperative respondent, the Department will generally assign
to that respondent the higher of (a) the highest rate ever applicable
to that respondent for the same class or kind of merchandise from
either the Less Than Fair Value (LTFV) investigation or a prior
administrative review or, if the firm has never before been
investigated or reviewed, the all others rate from the LTFV
investigation; or (b) the highest calculated rate in this review for
the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country or
origin (see, Final Results of Administrative Review: Antifriction
Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thererof from
the Federal Republic of Germany, (56 FR 31705, July 11, 1991). This
practice has been upheld in Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United
States, 996 F.2nd 1195, 1191-92 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and Krup Stahl AG et.
al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp 789 (CIT 1993).
Therefore, since Bitronic was not a party to the LTFV investigation
and there are no other firms in this review, we used as BIA the highest
rate ever applicable to Bitronic--6.97 percent as determined in the
August 3, 1989, through November 30, 1990, administrative review (57 FR
29283, July 1, 1992).
We preliminarily determine the dumping margin for the period
December 1, 1991, to November 30, 1992, to be:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitronic Telecoms Co., Ltd................................... 6.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between the United States price and the foreign market
value may vary from the percentages stated above. Upon completion of
this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions
concerning the respondent directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of the final result of this administrative review for
all shipments of small business telephone systems and subassemblies
thereof from Taiwan, 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
Act: (1) The cash deposit rates 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 the original LTFV investigation or previous
reviews, 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 or the original less than fair value
investigation or previous reviews, but the manufacture is, the cash
deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the
merchandise in the final results of this review or, if not covered in
this review, the rate for the most recent period for the manufacturer;
and (4) the cash deposit rate for any future entries from all other
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 0.00% percent, the ``all
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation of this case, in
accordance with the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) decisions in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and
Federal Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. the United
States 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993).
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 the
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.
Public Comment
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register and may request a
hearing within 10 days of the date of publication. Interested parties
may submit written comments (case briefs) on these preliminary results
not later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal comments
(rebuttal briefs), limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be
filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of
publication. The Department will include its analysis of issues raised
in any such written comments when it publishes the final results of
this administrative review.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: December 16, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-31963 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M