[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15034-15037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8220]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-810]


Mechanical Transfer Presses From Japan; Preliminary Results and 
Termination in Part of Antidumping Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and termination in part of 
antidumping duty administrative review; mechanical transfer presses 
from Japan.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on mechanical 
transfer presses (MTPs) from Japan in response to a request by 
petitioners, Verson Division of Allied Products Corp., the United 
Autoworkers of America, and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-
CIO/CLC); and by respondents Aida Engineering, Ltd. (Aida) and Mitsui 
and Co. (U.S.A), Inc. (Mitsui), an importer. This review covers 
shipments of this merchandise to the United States during the period 
February 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our 
final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping 
duties equal to the differences between the export price and NV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit argument are requested to submit with each 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth Urfer or Maureen Flannery, 
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-
4733.

Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping 
order on MTPs from Japan on February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5642). On February 
2, 1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR 6524) a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping 
order on MTPs from Japan covering the period February 1, 1994 through 
January 31, 1995.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1)(1995), petitioners, Verson 
Division of Allied Products Corp., the United Autoworkers of America, 
and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC), requested that we 
conduct a review of Komatsu, Ltd. and Komatsu America Industries Corp. 
(Komatsu), Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (IHI) and 
Hitachi Zosen Corporation (Hitachi Zosen). Aida requested that we 
conduct an administrative review of its sales. Mitsui, an importer, 
requested that we conduct an administrative review of the sales of 
Kurimoto, Ltd. (Kurimoto). We published a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review on March 15, 1995 (60 FR 13955). 
The Department is conducting this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Act.

Termination of Review in Part

    On July 31, 1995, petitioners withdrew their request for review 
with respect to sales made by Hitachi. On August 7, 1995, Hitachi 
expressed its support of petitioner's request to terminate the review 
with respect to its sales, and requested that the Department grant 
petitioner's request. At the time petitioner submitted its request, 
more than ninety days had elapsed since the initiation of this review. 
Section 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's regulations states that the 
ninety days which a party has to withdraw a request may be extended at 
the discretion of the Department. As both parties agreed that we should 
terminate the review for Hitachi, granting petitioner's request would 
not prejudice any party in this proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(a)(5), we are terminating the review with respect to Hitachi. 
(See Memorandum from Laurie Parkhill to Holly Kuga, dated August 22, 
1995.)

Scope of Review

    Imports covered by this review include MTPs currently classifiable 
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8462.99.0035 and

[[Page 15035]]
8466.94.5040. The HTS numbers are provided for convenience and for U.S. 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the 
scope of the order.
    The term ``mechanical transfer presses'' refers to automatic metal-
forming machine tools with multiple die stations in which the work 
piece is moved from station to station by a transfer mechanism designed 
as an integral part of the press and synchronized with the press 
action, whether imported as machines or parts suitable for use solely 
or principally with these machines. These presses may be imported 
assembled or unassembled. This review does not cover spare and 
replacement parts and accessories, which were determined to be outside 
the scope of the order. (See ``Final Scope Ruling on Spare and 
Replacement Parts,'' U.S. Department of Commerce, March 20, 1992.)
    This review covers four manufacturers/exporters of MTPs, and the 
period February 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995.

Verification

    We conducted verification of Kurimoto's questionnaire response in 
Osaka, Japan, from September 25 through September 29, 1995.

Export Price

A. Kurimoto

    For sales made by Kurimoto we calculated an export price, in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold to unrelated purchasers in the United States prior 
to importation into the United States.
    We calculated export price based on the delivered price to 
unrelated purchasers. We made deductions for foreign inland freight and 
brokerage and handling.

B. Aida

    Aida exported three MTPs to the United States during the period of 
review, but requested that we exclude two of its sales from this 
administrative review. Of these sales, one was a refurbished MTP, which 
we have excluded from this administrative review. The second was a 
transfer unit, an integral part of an MTP, which was imported for 
incorporation into a new MTP, the remaining components of which were 
manufactured in Taiwan. We have preliminarily determined to include 
this transfer unit in this administrative review.
    With regard to the refurbished press, Aida stated that it sold the 
MTP in 1980 to a Japanese company, and that the company used the press 
in Japan for fifteen years. Aida stated that it refurbished the press, 
and shipped it to the original owner's subsidiary in the United States 
during the period of review. The refurbishing carried out by Aida is 
essentially a service. Therefore, we have concluded that this 
transaction is not an MTP sale made by Aida during the POR and have 
excluded it from the margin calculation for Aida in this administrative 
review. (See Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Joseph A. Spetrini, dated 
March 22, 1996.)
    With regard to the transfer unit, Aida states that, in its view, 
the unit should be excluded from this review because the order covers 
complete MTPs, and the transfer unit is only an MTP component. Aida 
also states that the country of origin of this MTP is Taiwan. However, 
we note that the scope includes ``parts suitable for use solely or 
principally'' with MTPs. Therefore, because the transfer unit was 
imported as an original equipment part of an MTP, we have preliminarily 
determined to include the transfer unit in this review.
    For sales made by Aida we calculated an export price, or a 
constructed export price, as appropriate. We calculated export price in 
accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, for subject merchandise that 
was sold to unrelated purchasers in the United States prior to 
importation into the United States. We calculated export price based on 
the delivered price to unrelated purchasers. We made deductions for 
foreign inland freight, insurance, and U.S. transportation.
    We also calculated a constructed export price in accordance with 
section 772(b) of the Act, for the transfer unit that was first sold in 
the United States by a seller affiliated with Aida. We calculated 
constructed export price based on the delivered price to unrelated 
purchasers. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, insurance, 
brokerage and handling, U.S. duties, U.S. transportation, credit, 
warranties, direct selling expenses and indirect selling expenses, and 
constructed export price profit, in accordance with 772(d)(3) of the 
Act. Because there was a single U.S. price for the transfer unit and 
the Taiwan-manufactured components, we deducted the value of the Taiwan 
manufacturing, including an amount for profit on the Taiwan-
manufactured components, from the starting price in our calculation of 
export price.

Normal Value

    We preliminarily determine that the use of constructed value (CV) 
is warranted to calculate NV for Kurimoto and Aida, in accordance with 
section 773(a) of the Act. While the home market is viable, the 
particular market situation in this case, which requires that the 
subject merchandise be built to each customer's specifications, does 
not permit proper price-to-price comparisons in either the home markets 
or third countries.
    Aida and Kurimoto both argue that the Department should use CV as 
the basis for NV. Aida argues that home market, third country, and U.S. 
market products are differentiated by the many differences in 
specifications between the various presses and that no merchandise sold 
in the home market or to a third country is identical to the 
merchandise sold to the United States. Kurimoto states that MTPs are 
extremely complex pieces of equipment consisting of thousands of 
different components and requiring months to produce, and even if costs 
could be linked to specific physical characteristics, thousands of 
adjustments would be required. We note that in past proceedings 
involving large, custom-built capital equipment, including prior 
reviews of this order, we have normally resorted to CV. (See, e.g., 
Large Power Transformers from France; Final Result of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 62808, December 7, 1995; and Mechanical 
Transfer Presses From Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 58 FR 68117, December 23, 1993.)

A. Kurimoto

    For Kurimoto, CV consists of the cost of materials and fabrication, 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and 
packing. We used packing costs for merchandise exported to the United 
States. We made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment by adding to CV U.S. 
technical service expenses and credit.

B. Aida

    For Aida's export price sale, CV consists of the cost of materials 
and fabrication, SG&A, profit, and packing. We used packing costs for 
merchandise exported to the United States. We made a circumstance-of-
sale adjustment by deducting from CV home market direct selling 
expenses, i.e., warranties and commissions, and adding to CV U.S. 
direct selling expenses, i.e., warranties, commissions, and credit.
    For Aida's constructed export price sale, CV consists of the cost 
of materials

[[Page 15036]]
and fabrication, SG&A, profit, and packing. We used packing costs for 
merchandise exported to the United States. We made a circumstance-of-
sale adjustment by deducting from CV home market direct selling 
expenses, i.e., warranties and credit.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    We preliminarily determine, in accordance with section 776(c) of 
the Act, that the use of facts available is appropriate for Komatsu 
because it did not respond to the Department's antidumping 
questionnaire. We sent Komatsu a questionnaire on June 23, 1995, with 
deadlines of July 7, 1995 for section A and Appendix V and August 22, 
1995 for the remaining sections. On July 7, 1995 Komatsu submitted a 
letter to the Department stating that it had no exports of the subject 
merchandise, but that it did export a small portion of parts. Komatsu 
stated that it was filing a scope request and requested an extension 
until the Department made a scope determination. On July 10, 1995, we 
granted Komatsu an extension until July 12, 1995 to respond to Section 
A and Appendix V, but stated that, because we are conducting this 
review under statutory deadlines, we could not grant Komatsu the 
extension it requested. Komatsu requested, and we granted, another 
extension until July 19, 1995, in which to respond to Section A and 
Appendix V.
    On July 19, 1995, we received a response to section A and Appendix 
V. In its response Komatsu stated that it had no sales to the United 
States. We did not receive a response to the remaining sections of the 
questionnaire. However, because a determination regarding the parts, 
which are subject to the scope inquiry, has not been reached, we 
consider those parts to be subject to this administrative review. The 
necessary information is not available on the record with regard to the 
nature of the parts because Komatsu withheld the requested information. 
Therefore, we must make our preliminary determination based on facts 
otherwise available (section 776(a) of the Act). We intend to issue a 
scope ruling before the final results of this review. Should the 
Department clarify the scope of the order to exclude the parts in 
question, we will adjust our final results for Komatsu accordingly.
    Where the Department must base the entire dumping margin for a 
respondent in an administrative review on the facts available because 
that respondent failed to cooperate, section 776(b) authorizes the 
Department to use an inference adverse to the interests of that 
respondent in choosing the facts available. Section 776(b) also 
authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available information 
derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous 
administrative review, or other information placed on the record. 
Because information from prior proceedings constitutes secondary 
information, section 776(c) provides that the Department shall, to the 
extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of 
Administrative Action (SAA) provides that ``corroborate'' means simply 
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information 
to be used has probative value.
    To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the 
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information to be used. However, unlike other types of information, 
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent 
sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated 
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time 
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, 
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as 
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not 
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not 
appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will disregard 
the margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review (60 FR 49567), where the Department disregarded 
the highest margin in that case as adverse BIA because the margin was 
based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting 
in an unusually high margin). In this case, we have used the highest 
rate from any prior segment of the proceeding, 15.16 percent rate.

Non-shipper

    IHI stated that it did not have shipments during the period of 
review, and we confirmed this with the United States Customs Service. 
Therefore, we are treating IHI as a non-shipper for this review. IHI 
will retain its rate from the last administrative review.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins 
exist:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
      Manufacturer/exporter               Time period         (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aida Engineering, Ltd............  2/1/94-1/31/95..........         0.00
Kurimoto, Ltd....................  2/1/94-1/31/95..........         0.00
Komatsu America Industries         2/1/94-1/31/95..........        15.16
 Corporation.                                                           
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy          2/1/94-1/31/95..........         0.00
 Industries, Ltd..                                                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may 
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if 
requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice, 
or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case 
briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of 
publication. The Department will publish a notice of final results of 
this administrative review, which will include the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such comments.
    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between export price and NV may vary from the percentage 
stated above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for 
all shipments of MTPs from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for

[[Page 15037]]
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for reviewed 
companies will be the rate established in the final results of this 
review; (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 
less-than-fair-value 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) for all other 
producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate 
shall be the rate established in the investigation of sales at less 
than fair value, which is 14.51 percent.
    These deposit rates, 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 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: March 27, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-8220 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P