[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39929-39931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19257]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-807]


Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured 
or Uncured, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review

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

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

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

SUMMARY: On May 8, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published a notice of preliminary results of its administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on industrial belts and components 
thereof, whether cured or uncured (industrial belts), from Japan. This 
review covers one manufacturer/exporter during the period June 1, 1993, 
through May 31, 1994.
    We gave interested parties the opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have not changed the dumping margin from those presented in our 
preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Trentham or Zev Primor, Office of 
Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the 
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

    On May 8, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 22561) the preliminary results of the 1993-94 (fifth) 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on industrial belts 
from Japan (54 FR 25314, June 14, 1989). The Department has now 
completed this 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 industrial belts 
and components and parts thereof, whether cured or uncured, from Japan. 
These products include V-belts, synchronous belts, and other industrial 
belts, in part or wholly of rubber or plastic, and containing textile 
fiber (including glass fiber) or steel wire, cord or strand, and 
whether in endless (i.e., closed loops) belts, or in belting in lengths 
or links. This review excludes conveyor belts and automotive belts, as 
well as front engine drive belts found on equipment powered by internal 
combustion engines, including trucks, tractors, buses, and lift trucks.
    During the period of review the merchandise was classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings, 3926.90.55, 3926.90.56, 
3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60, 4010.10.10, 4010.10.50, 4010.91.11, 
4010.91.15, 4010.91.19, 4010.91.50, 4010.99.11, 4010.99.15, 4010.99.19, 
4010.99.50, 5910.00.10, 5910.00.90, and 7326.20.00. These HTS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. 

[[Page 39930]]
Customs Service (Customs Service) purposes. Our written description of 
the scope of the order remains dispositive.
    This review covers one Japanese manufacturer and exporter of 
industrial belts to the United States, Mitsuboshi Belting Limited 
(MBL), and the period June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994.

Analysis of the Comments Received

    The Department gave interested parties the opportunity to comment 
on the preliminary results of this administrative review. We received a 
case brief from MBL, and case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner, 
Gates Rubber Company (Gates). We did not receive a request for a 
hearing.
    Comment: MBL acknowledges that the Department's resort to best 
information available (BIA) is authorized under section 776(c) of the 
Tariff act, since MBL did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire. MBL argues, however, that the Department should use 
information obtained in the first administrative review (1989-90) as 
BIA instead of the rate from the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation. MBL contends that the Department is required to consider 
the most recent information available in deciding upon a BIA rate. 
According to MBL, the information provided by the respondent in the 
first administrative review is the most probative evidence of the 
current margin because the LTFV margin was based solely on information 
provided by the petitioner for the period October 1986 through March 
1988 while the first review margin is based on information provided by 
MBL for the period of February 1, 1989 through May 31, 1990.
    Furthermore, MBL points out that in two separate actions before the 
United States Court of International Trade (CIT), it is challenging the 
Department's choice of BIA in the second administrative review and in 
the third and fourth administrative reviews. MBL urges the Department 
to withhold making a final determination as to the applicable BIA in 
this fifth administrative review until the ongoing litigation is 
resolved.
    Gates argues that based on MBL's refusal to cooperate in this 
review, the Department should apply the highest margin determined for 
any period to MBL's entries. According to Gates, the Department has 
previously rejected MBL's argument that information obtained in the 
first administrative review (1989-90) should be used as BIA and has 
consistently applied the highest margin determined for any period to 
MBL's entries. Gates states that the basis for this determination is 
the fact that MBL refused to respond to the questionnaire. As such, 
Gates contends, it is well-established under Department practice that 
the highest prior rate should apply.
    Department's Position: Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act requires us 
to use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable 
to produce information requested in a timely manner and in the form 
required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation.'' In 
deciding what to use as BIA, the Department's regulations provide that 
the Department may take into account whether a party refuses to provide 
information requested (19 CFR 353.37(b)). MBL's contention that the 
Department should use the information obtained in the 1989-90 
administrative review is contrary to Department policy. When a 
respondent refuses to cooperate with the Department, it is our policy 
to assign a dumping margin to that respondent, as BIA, based on the 
higher of: (1) The highest rate found for any firm in the original LTFV 
investigation or previous administrative review, or (2) the highest 
rate found for any firm in the current review (Antifriction Bearings 
(Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France et 
al., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 
28360, 28379 (June 24, 1992)). The Department's methodology for 
assigning BIA has been upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit (CAFC) (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 
F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United States, 822 
F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993)). Because MBL refused to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire, it was reasonable for the Department to 
assign to MBL, as BIA, a rate of 93.16 percent, the highest rate found 
for any firm in the original LTFV investigation. Further, because the 
law does not provide for extensions of deadlines pending the outcome of 
court decisions in other proceedings, we have not delayed our final 
results. In addition, the CIT has held that the Department may base BIA 
on a rate established in a prior review that is subject to challenge 
(see D & L Supply Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-92 at 13 (CIT May 
15, 1995), citing D & L Supply Co., 841 F. Supp. 1312, 1314 (CIT 
1993)). Furthermore, the CIT has recognized the need for the Department 
to be able to issue final determinations in a timely fashion based upon 
the rates available at the time the final determination is due (see D & 
L Supply Co., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-92 at 15 (CIT May 
15, 1995)).

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this administrative review, the Department 
determines that a dumping margin of 93.16 percent exists for MBL for 
the period June 1, 1993 though May 31, 1994.
    The Department will instruct the Customs Service to assess 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will 
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirement will be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff act: (1) For subject 
merchandise exported by MBL, a cash deposit of 93.16 percent; (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 conducted by the 
Department, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate of 
93.16 percent established in the LTFV investigation.
    This notice 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 this notice are in accordance with 
section 

[[Page 39931]]
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

    Dated: July 28, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-19257 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P