[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 194 (Friday, October 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52368-52370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24926]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-815]
Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Japan; 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 from the Ad Hoc Committee of Southern
California Producers of Gray Portland Cement (the petitioner) and Onoda
Cement Company, Ltd. (the respondent), the Department of Commerce (the
Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Japan. The review
covers one manufacturer/exporter, Onoda Cement Co., Ltd. (Onoda), and
the period May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994 (POR). The review
indicates the existence of dumping margins during this period.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct
the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties equal
to the difference between the United States price (USP) and FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
[[Page 52369]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy S. Wei 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:
Background
On May 4, 1994, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity
to Request an Administrative Review'' (59 FR 23051) of the antidumping
duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Japan (56 FR 21658,
May 10, 1991). On May 12, 1994, and May 31, 1994, requests were
submitted by the respondent and petitioner, respectively, for the
Department to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on gray portland cement and clinker from Japan for Onoda. We
initiated the review, covering the period May 1, 1993, through April
30, 1994, on June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30770). The Department is conducting
this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act).
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review are gray portland cement and
clinker from Japan. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the
primary component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material
produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than grinding into
finished cement. Microfine cement was specifically excluded from the
antidumping duty order. Gray portland cement is currently classifiable
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 2523.29, and
clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 2523.10. Gray
portland cement has also been entered under item number 2523.90 as
``other hydraulic cements''.
The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written product description remains dispositive as to the
scope of the product coverage.
This review covers Onoda and the period May 1, 1993 through April
30, 1994.
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.
Product Comparisons
Product comparisons were made on the basis of standards established
by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM standards). All
of the cement sold in the United States fell within one ASTM standard,
Type I. Onoda provided documents indicating the chemical composition,
technical specifications, and uses for each cement type sold in the
home market during the period of review.
Based on information submitted on the record and our findings at
verification, we have determined that Type N cement, which is sold in
the home market, is the closest comparable model to Type I cement,
given the similar general chemical compositions and uses.
Onoda made no sales of clinker in the United States during the
period of review.
Use of Best Information Available
At verification, we were unable to substantiate Onoda's short-term
interest rates. As a result, in accordance with section 776(c) of the
Act, we are using best information available (BIA) for Onoda's home
market credit expense. As BIA, we used the lowest short-term interest
rate reported by Onoda in its questionnaire response for the POR. We
multiplied this rate by the number of days between the dates of payment
and shipment and divided by 365 days for each home market sale. This
amount was then multiplied by the gross unit price reported for each
sale in order to calculate credit expense.
United States Price
In calculating USP, the Department used purchase price sales, as
defined in section 772(b) of the Act. We made adjustments, where
appropriate, for loading costs, ocean freight, marine insurance,
customs user fees and harbor fees, interest revenue, credit, and
document handling fees. The Department also made an adjustment to the
amount of taxes included in USP in accordance with the Department's tax
adjustment methodology (see Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994).
Foreign Market Value
In calculating FMV, we used home market price, as defined in
section 773(a) of the Act. Home market price was based on FOB, CIF
terminal, pick-up, or delivered prices to related and unrelated
customers in the home market. We did not include those home market
sales to those related parties which were not made at arm's length
prices. In order to determine whether these sales were made at arm's-
length prices, we calculated a weighted-average price of all of Onoda's
sales to unrelated customers. We compared this price to a weighted-
average price of the home market sales for each related party. Where
the weighted-average price charged to a related party was less than the
weighted-average price charged to all of Onoda's unrelated customers,
we determined that those related party sales were not made at arm's-
length prices, and removed those sales from our FMV calculation.
Due to the existence of sales below the cost of production (COP) in
a previous administrative review, the Department had reasonable grounds
to believe or suspect that sales below the COP may have occurred during
this review, as explained in section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, the
Department initiated a COP investigation for this review. We calculated
COP based on Onoda's reported cost of manufacturing, selling expenses,
general and administrative expenses, and net interest expense, as
defined in 19 CFR 353.51(c). We compared COP to home market prices, net
of movement charges, price adjustments, and discounts.
The results of our cost test indicated that more than 10 percent
but less than 90 percent of home market sales were below the COP,
indicating that the below-cost sales were made in substantial
quantities. In addition, we determined that the below-cost sales were
made over an extended period of time, since these sales occurred in
more than two months of the review period. Furthermore, no evidence was
presented to indicate that below-cost COP prices would permit the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal
course of trade. Thus, we dropped from our calculation of FMV all home
market sales that were made below the COP.
Using the remaining sales for calculating the FMV used in the
dumping calculation, we made adjustments, where appropriate, for
credit, interest revenue, packing, post-sale freight costs, and all
rebates and discounts. The Department also made an adjustment to the
amount of consumption taxes included in FMV in accordance with the
Department's aforementioned tax adjustment methodology. In accordance
with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1), we offset commissions paid in the home market
with indirect selling expenses from the U.S. market
[[Page 52370]]
since no sales commissions were paid in the U.S. market. In addition,
Onoda was unable to provide dates of payment for some home market
sales, since Onoda claimed that it had not received payment for these
sales by the time the home market sales tape was created. As a result,
we have calculated the weighted-average number of days between the
dates of shipment and the dates of payment for those home market sales
where the dates of payment were reported. We added this weighted-
average number of days to the shipment dates of those home market sales
with missing dates of payment. We then used these dates as the dates of
payment for these sales.
The Department did not deduct pre-sale transportation costs, in
accordance with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit's ruling in The Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of
Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13 F.3d 398 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
This decision allows us to deduct pre-sale transportation costs from
FMV only if these expenses are directly related to the home market
sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(a). In order to determine
whether pre-sale transportation costs are direct, the Department
examines pre-sale warehousing expenses, since the pre-sale
transportation costs incurred in positioning the merchandise at the
warehouse are, for analytical purposes, inextricably linked to the pre-
sale warehousing expenses. Since Onoda reported that it incurred no
after-sale warehousing expenses and did not claim any warehousing
expenses as direct circumstance-of-sale adjustments in its
questionnaire responses, we determined that Onoda's warehousing
expenses were pre-sale, indirect selling expenses. Then, in the absence
of contrary evidence, pre-sale transportation costs were also treated
as indirect expenses (see Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Japan;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 43761,
43766, Comment 9, August 23, 1995).
Where appropriate, we made further adjustments to FMV to account
for differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.57 of the Department's regulations.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, the Department
preliminarily determines that a margin of 28.32 percent exists for
Onoda for the period May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
the date of publication of this notice and any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this
notice, or the first workday thereafter and will be limited to those
issues raised in the case briefs and/or written comment. Case briefs
and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted not
later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and
rebuttals to written comments, limited to the issues raised in the case
briefs and comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date
of publication. The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of any
written comments or case briefs.
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated above. The
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the
Customs.
Furthermore, 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 review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Onoda will be the
rate 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 a previous review or the original less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the rate published in the most recent final results or
determination for which the manufacturer or exporter received a
company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in
this review, earlier reviews, or the original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the
manufacturer of the merchandise in these final results of review,
earlier reviews, or the original investigation, whichever is the most
recent; and (4) the ``all others'' rate will be 70.23 percent, as
specified in the final results of redetermination pursuant to court
remand (60 FR 24832, May 10, 1995).
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.
This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
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: September 27, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-24926 Filed 10-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P