[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43769-43771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20930]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-028]
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Department of Commerce
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23, 1995.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the American Chain Association,
the petitioner in this proceeding, the Department of Commerce has
conducted an administrative review of the antidumping finding on roller
chain, other than bicycle, from Japan. This review, which covers four
manufacturers/exporters of this merchandise to the United States and
the period April 1, 1992 through March 31, 1993, indicates the
existence of dumping margins. Interested parties are invited to comment
on these preliminary results.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Berg or Gregory Thompson, Office
of Antidumping Investigation, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0114 or 482-3003, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statue and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and section 353.22
of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.22).
Background
On October 7, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 52264) the final results of
its last administrative review of the antidumping finding on roller
chain, other than bicycle, from Japan (38 FR 9226; April 12, 1973). In
April 1993, the petitioner requested that we conduct an administrative
review for the period April 1, 1992 through March 31, 1993, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1). We published a notice of
initiation of review on May 27, 1993 (58 FR 30769).
On August 9, 1993, the Department issued an antidumping
questionnaire to the following six companies: Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd.
(Daido), Enuma Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Enuma), Hitachi Metals Techno Ltd.
(Hitachi), Izumi Chain Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi), Pulton Chain
Co., Ltd. (Pulton), and R.K. Excel (Excel). Of those six companies,
Excel and Izumi submitted their responses on September 24, 1993.
Hitachi and Pulton asserted that they had no sales during this period
of review (POR). Although Daido and Enuma were included when the
Department published a notice of initiation for this review, the
administrative reviews of Daido and Enuma are being conducted
separately and their preliminary results will be published in a later
notice.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of roller chain, other
than bicycle, from Japan. The term ``roller chain, other than
bicycle,'' as used in this review includes chain, with or without
attachments, whether or not plated or coated, and whether or not
manufactured to American or British standards, which is used for power
transmission and/or conveyance. Such chain consists of a series of
alternately-assembled roller links and pin links in which the pins
articulate inside the bushings and the rollers are free to turn on the
bushings. Pins and bushings are press fit in their respective link
plates. Chain may be single strand, having one row of roller links, or
multiple strand, having more than one row of roller links. The center
plates are located between the strands of roller links. Such chain may
be either single or double pitch and may be used as power transmission
or conveyer chain.
This review also covers leaf chain, which consists of a series of
link plates alternately assembled with pins in such a way that the
joint is free to articulate between adjoining pitches. This review
further covers chain model numbers 25 and 35. Roller chain is currently
[[Page 43770]]
classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) subheadings 7315.11.00 through 7619.90.00. HTSUS item numbers
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the United States price (USP) to the foreign market
value (FMV), as specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign
Market Value'' sections of this notice. When comparing the U.S. sales
to sales of similar merchandise in the home market, we made adjustments
for differences in physical characteristics, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.57.
United States Price
Pursuant to section 772(b) of the Act, we based USP on purchase
price because all of Excel's and Izumi's U.S. sales to the first
unrelated purchaser took place prior to importation into the United
States, and exporter's sales price methodology was not otherwise
indicated.
We calculated purchase price based on packed FOB or ex-go-down
Japanese port prices to unrelated purchasers in the United States or
Japan. Inasmuch as Excel incorrectly reported U.S. price, net of
commissions, we recalculated gross unit price to include U.S.
commissions. Where applicable, we made deductions for foreign inland
freight and foreign inland insurance. See Roller Chain, Other Than
Bicycle, From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review 57 FR 56319-20 (November 27, 1992).
In accordance with our standard practice, pursuant to the decision
of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in Federal-Mogul
Corporation and The Torrington Company v. United States (Federal-
Mogul), 834 F. Supp. 1391 (CIT 1993), our calculations include an
adjustment to U.S. price for the consumption tax levied on comparison
sales in Japan. See Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Angle From Japan, 60 FR 16609
(March 31, 1995) and Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determination: Color
Negative Photographic Paper and Chemical Components from Japan, 59 FR
16177, 16179 (April 6, 1994), for an explanation of this methodology.
Foreign Market Value
In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of the
subject merchandise in the home market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating FMV, we compared each respondents' volume of home market
sales of the subject merchandise to the volume of third country sales
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We found that the
home market was viable for both respondents. See 19 CFR 353.48(a).
We calculated FMV for both respondents based on packed, FOB or
delivered prices to unrelated purchasers in Japan. We made deductions,
where appropriate, from FMV for inland freight, insurance, and
discounts. In accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, we
deducted, as appropriate, home market packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs. We made circumstance-of-sale adjustments, where
applicable, for differences in credit expenses, advertising expenses,
warranty expenses and technical service expenses. Pursuant to section
353.56 (b)(1) of the Department's regulations, we offset U.S.
commissions, where appropriate, by deducting home-market indirect
selling expenses from FMV in an amount not exceeding the U.S.
commissions. We recalculated Excel's technical service costs. Only the
travel portion of Excel's technical service costs was treated as a
direct selling expense because these expenses would not have been
incurred absent the sales of the subject merchandise. Following our
past practice, the fixed costs associated with technical services
(salaries, benefits, and automobile depreciation) were treated as
indirect selling expenses.
An adjustment for the consumption tax was made in accordance with
our practice (see ``United States Price'' section of this notice).
We performed an arm's-length test to determine whether Izumi's
sales to its related customers were made at arm's length. Consequently,
we disregarded one of Izumi's reported sales to a related party for
margin calculation purposes because there were no comparable sales to
unrelated parties to use as an arm's length benchmark.
Section 773(a)(4)(c) of the Act provides that a difference-in-
merchandise (DIFMER) allowance may be made when a product on which FMV
is based is not identical to that exported to the United States.
However, when the DIFMER is greater than 20 percent of the U.S.
product's total cost of manufacture (COM), the Department resorts to
constructed value (CV) to establish FMV. See ``Differences in
Merchandise: 20% Rule,'' Import Administration Policy Bulletin: Number
92.2 (July 29, 1992).
In this review, we found that the variable manufacturing cost
differences for certain models of roller chain, other than bicycle, did
not exceed 20 percent of the total average COM of the product exported
to the United States. In such instances, we based FMV on home-market
prices, including a DIFMER allowance. For some models sold by Izumi,
however, these variable-cost differences exceeded 20 percent of the
U.S. product COM. In these instances, we based FMV on CV, as described
in the ``Constructed Value'' section below.
Constructed Value
Pursuant to section 773(a)(2) of the Act, where there were no
contemporaneous home-market sales of such or similar merchandise, we
based FMV on CV. We also relied on CV where there were contemporaneous
home-market sales of such or similar merchandise but the DIFMER
exceeded 20 percent.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of the cost of materials, fabrication costs, general
expenses, profit, and U.S. packing. Based on Import Administration
Policy Bulletin: Number 94.6 (March 25, 1994), we did not include
consumption taxes in our calculation of CV. We added statutory or
actual amounts for the general expenses and profit components of CV, as
appropriate.
With respect to Izumi's CV submission, we made the following
adjustments:
(1) General and administrative (G&A) expenses: Izumi, in accordance
with its accounting period, reported its G&A expenses for the chain
division in two six-month periods. We recalculated these expenses on a
company-wide basis for the year ending September 30, 1992. Using this
period is consistent with the Department's practice, i.e., it was the
annual period corresponding most closely to the POR. Additionally, we
deducted inland freight from the submitted G&A expenses.
(2) Interest expenses: Izumi computed interest expense for CV based
on amounts incurred by the company's chain division. It is the
Department's normal practice to compute interest at the highest entity
level, in this case, Izumi Chain Manufacturing Co., Ltd. We therefore
revised Izumi's interest expense based on its company-wide financial
statements for the year ended September 30, 1992, the annual period
most closely related to the POR.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparison of United States price to foreign
market value, we preliminarily determine the following dumping margins:
[[Page 43771]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi..................................................... \1\ 12.68
Izumi....................................................... 0.27
Pulton...................................................... \1\ 0.01
Excel....................................................... 0.10
All Others.................................................. 15.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No sales during the period. Rate is from the last period in which
there were sales.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department
will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the
Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will
be effective for all shipments of roller chain, other than bicycle,
from Japan, 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 rate will be that established in the final results of this
administrative review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated
companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published in the final determination covering
the most recent period review; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, previous reviews, or the original
investigation, but its manufacturer is such a firm, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer in the final
results of the most recently completed review; and (4) for any future
entries from all other manufacturers or exporters who are not covered
in this or prior administrative reviews, and who are unrelated to any
firms listed above, or any previously reviewed firm, the cash deposit
rate will be the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first review
conducted by the Department in which a ``new shipper'' rate was
established, as discussed below.
On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral
Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and in
Federal-Mogul, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 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 for the
purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current and future
administrative reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an
antidumping duty finding, and we are unable to ascertain the ``all
others'' rate from the Treasury LTFV investigation, the ``all others''
rate for the purposes of this review would normally be the ``new
shipper'' rate established in the first notice of final results of
administrative review published by the Department (46 FR 44488,
September 4, 1981). However, a ``new shipper'' rate was not established
in that notice. Therefore, the ``all others'' rate of 15.92 percent is
based on the first review conducted by the Department in which a ``new
shipper'' rate was established in the final results of antidumping
finding administrative review (48 FR 51801, November 14, 1983).
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.
Public Comment
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B-099, within ten days of
publication. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address and
telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the
issues to be discussed.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant
Secretary no later than September 18, 1995, and rebuttal briefs no
later than September 20, 1995. A public hearing, if requested, will be
held on September 22, 1995, at 10:00 am at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, in Room 1410, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and
place of the hearing 48 hours prior to the scheduled time. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will be limited to
issues raised in the briefs. The Department will publish a notice of
final results of this administrative review, including an analysis of
issues raised in any written comments.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22
of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 353.22).
Dated: August 16, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-20930 Filed 8-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P