[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28168-28171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13963]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-028]


Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke Order 
(in Part)

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping administrative 
review and intent to revoke order (in part).

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from the American Chain Association 
(ACA), petitioner in this proceeding, Izumi Chain Manufacturing Co., 
Ltd. (Izumi), Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd (Daido), and Enuma Chain Mfg. Co., 
Ltd. (Enuma), respondents in this proceeding, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping finding on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan. 
This review covers seven manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States during the April 1, 1994 through March 
31, 1995 period of review (POR).
    While we have preliminarily determined that four manufacturers/
exporters reviewed made sales below normal value (NV) during the POR, 
we determined the weighted-average dumping margin for three of the four 
manufacturers/exporters to be de minimis. We have also preliminarily 
determined that the remaining three manufacturers/exporters reviewed 
had no sales or shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR. 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 the NV.
    In accordance with section 353.25 of the Department's regulations, 
we intend to revoke the antidumping duty finding with respect to Daido 
and Enuma because we have reason to believe that Daido and Enuma have 
sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at 
least three consecutive years and are not likely to sell the subject 
merchandise at less than NV in the future. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit 
argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: 
(1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack K. Dulberger, Matt Blaskovich, 
Ron Trentham, or Joseph Hanley, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 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 225130).

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty finding on roller 
chain, other than bicycle, from Japan on April 12, 1973 (38 FR 9926). 
The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping finding for the 1994-95 
review period on April 4, 1995 (60 FR 17052). On April 25, 1995, 
petitioner requested that the Department conduct an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty finding on roller chain, other than 
bicycle, from Japan for seven manufacturers/exporters (Daido, Enuma, 
Izumi, Hitachi Metals Techno Ltd. (Hitachi), Pulton Chain Co., Ltd. 
(Pulton), Peer Chain Company (Peer), and R.K. Excel). Additionally, on 
April 28, 1995, Izumi, Daido, and Enuma also requested that the 
Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of the 
subject merchandise during the POR. In its April 28, 1995 letter, Daido 
and Enuma requested partial revocation of the finding pursuant to 
Sec. 353.25(b) of the Department's regulations. We initiated the review 
on May 15, 1995, (60 FR 25885).
    Hitachi, Pulton, and Peer reported, and the Department verified 
through Customs, that they had no shipments/sales of the subject 
merchandise during the POR.
    The Department extended the time limits for the deadlines for the 
preliminary and final results of review because of the additional time 
required for the development of a new questionnaire that accorded with 
URAA. See Antidumping Duty

[[Page 28169]]

Administrative Reviews; Time Limits, 60 FR 56141 (November 7, 1995). As 
a result of the federal government 28-day total shutdown, these 
deadlines were further extended. The Department is conducting this 
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered this administrative review are 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 
transmissions and/or conveyance. Such chain consists of a series of 
alternately-assembled roller links and pin links in which the pins 
articulate inside from 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 conveyor 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 
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.

Verification

    In accordance with Sec. 353.25(c)(2)(ii) of the Department's 
regulations, we verified information provided by Daido and Enuma using 
standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the 
manufacturer's facilities, the examination of relevant sales and 
financial records, and selection of original documentation containing 
relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in the 
public versions of the verification reports.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested, significantly impedes a determination under the antidumping 
statute, or provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified, the Department shall use facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination. Because Izumi, Daido, and Enuma 
failed or refused to submit certain information that the Department had 
requested, we must use facts otherwise available for all three 
respondents.
    A large portion of Izumi's home market (HM) sales were to an 
affiliated reseller. We have concluded that the extremely small 
percentage of Izumi's remaining HM sales to unaffiliated customers do 
not provide a sufficient factual basis to determine whether sales to 
the affiliated reseller were made at arm's-length prices. See 
Television Receivers, Monochrome and Color, from Japan; Final, Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52 FR 8940, 8943 (March 20, 
1987), and Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic of 
Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 8253 (March 4, 1996). Further, Izumi did not submit information 
concerning home market downstream sales (sales by the affiliated 
customer to unaffiliated customers).
    Daido and Enuma's U.S. sales subsidiary, Daido Corporation, 
incurred further processing costs on certain constructed export price 
(CEP) sales of attachment-equipped roller chain. Our analysis of the 
transfer prices of the attachments submitted by Daido Corporation for 
use in the calculation of total further processing costs indicates that 
the submitted transfer prices do not consistently reflect the actual 
material costs of the attachments. Further, Daido Corporation used a 
cost allocation methodology which, upon analysis, we determined was in 
a form which did not provide a reliable indication of their actual 
further processing costs.
    For certain U.S. sales where there were no contemporaneous sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market, Daido and Enuma also failed 
to provide the Department with model match and difference in 
merchandise adjustment information necessary to calculate a dumping 
margin. Finally, as a result of findings at verification, we determined 
that Daido and Enuma failed to report a certain number of CEP sales.
    However, because of the overall integrity of Daido and Enuma's 
questionnaire responses, and because the overall volume of sales 
affected by these deficiencies is small, we have determined to base 
these preliminary results for these respondents on a calculated rate 
rather than a rate based entirely on the facts available. The use of 
facts available is necessary to calculate a dumping margin for those 
U.S. sales which lack the proper information necessary to calculate a 
dumping margin.
    As facts otherwise available we are assigning to Enuma the highest 
transaction margin calculated on a U.S. sale made by Enuma in this 
review. Because no non-aberrational dumping margins were found on any 
U.S. sales made by Daido during the period of review, use of Daido's 
non-aberrational transaction margin data would not supply the adverse 
inference warranted in this case. Therefore, as facts otherwise 
available we are assigning to Daido the highest rate calculated in this 
review for another company (3.97 percent). We limited application of 
these rates to the particular transactions involved.
    Examination of the circumstances surrounding Izumi's failure to 
provide information on downstream sales made in the home market by its 
affiliated reseller indicates that Izumi acted to the best of its 
ability to comply with the Department's requests for information. Thus, 
the Department has determined that, in selecting among the facts 
otherwise available to Izumi, an adverse inference is not warranted in 
this case. As facts otherwise available, we are using Izumi's reported 
constructed value as the basis for NV to calculate dumping margins on 
U.S. sales that would have been compared to NV based on downstream 
sales had such information been reported.

United States Price

    In calculating USP for R.K. Excel, Daido, Enuma, and Izumi we used 
export price (EP), as defined in section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
merchandise was sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers prior to date of 
importation. Additionally, we treated certain U.S. sales by Daido and 
Enuma as CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, when the subject 
merchandise was first sold to unrelated purchasers after import into 
the United States. EP sales were based on packed, FOB Japanese port, 
ex-go-down Japanese port price, or CIF U.S. port prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. We made adjustments, where applicable, 
for inland freight from the warehouse, inland insurance, brokerage and 
handling, international freight, marine insurance, in accordance with 
section 772(c) of the Act, because these expenses were incident to 
bringing the subject merchandise from the original

[[Page 28170]]

place of shipment in the exporting country to the place of delivery in 
the United States.
    We based CEP on packed, FOB warehouse or delivered price to 
unrelated purchasers in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(c) 
and (d) of the Act, the Department made adjustments, where applicable, 
for international freight, brokerage and handling, credit, U.S. inland 
freight, commissions, and indirect selling expenses.

Normal Value

A. Viability

    In order to determine whether there was sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market (HM) to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product, for each of the companies subject to this review, to the 
volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with 
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of HM sales of 
the foreign like product for each of the companies subject to this 
review was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. 
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the HM provides a 
viable basis for calculating NV for those companies subject to this 
review, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

B. Constructed Value

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated 
constructed value (CV) for Izumi based on its cost of materials and 
fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and 
profit incurred and realized in connection with the production and sale 
of the foreign like product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the costs 
of materials and fabrication, as reported in the CV portion of Izumi's 
questionnaire response. We calculated Izumi's indirect selling and 
credit expenses based on the information reported in the HM sales 
portion of Izumi's questionnaire response. We used the U.S. packing 
costs as reported in the U.S. sales portion of Izumi's questionnaire 
response. We calculated actual profit by using the information provided 
in Izumi's 1994 fiscal year financial statements for its chain 
division.

C. Price-to-Price Comparisons

    For price-to-price comparisons, we based NV on the price which the 
foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the exporting 
country, in the usual commercial quantities, in the ordinary course of 
trade, and to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade as the 
U.S. sale, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We based 
NV for all companies subject to this review, on packed, delivered 
prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the HM. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act, for all 
companies subject to this review. We made deductions from NV for 
brokerage, inland freight, insurance and discounts. Where applicable, 
we made adjustments for differences in packing, credit, advertising, 
warranty, and technical service expenses. We made adjustments, where 
appropriate, for physical differences in merchandise in accordance with 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
    Where there were no sales commissions paid in the HM, we offset 
U.S. commissions with the weighted average of home market indirect 
selling expenses up to the amount of the commissions paid on U.S. sales 
in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1).

D. Level of Trade/CEP Offset

    As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the 
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, at 829-831, to the extent possible, the Department will 
calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade as the U.S. 
sale. When the Department is unable to find sale(s) in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade as sale(s) in the U.S., the 
Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign markets at a 
different level of trade.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare a 
U.S. sale at one level of trade to NV sales at a different level of 
trade, the Department will adjust the NV to account for the difference 
in level of trade if two conditions are met. First, there must be 
differences between the actual selling functions performed by the 
seller at the level of trade of the U.S. sale and at the level of trade 
of the NV sale. Second, the differences must affect price comparability 
as evidenced by a pattern of consistent price differences between sales 
at different levels of trade in the market in which NV is determined. 
When CEP is applicable, section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes the 
procedures for making a CEP offset when (1) NV is at a different level 
of trade, and (2) the data available do not provide an appropriate 
basis for a level of trade adjustment from the U.S. sale. Also, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B), to qualify for a CEP offset, the 
level of trade in the HM must also constitute a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the level of trade of the CEP sale.
    Daido and Enuma reported one level of trade and one channel of 
distribution in the HM (direct to end users). Daido and Enuma made CEP 
and EP sales to the U.S. market and claimed either a level of trade 
adjustment for its CEP sales, or a CEP offset. The level of trade of 
the U.S. sales is determined by the adjusted price of the CEP sale.
    Daido and Enuma's questionnaire responses indicate a difference 
between the actual selling functions performed by Daido and Enuma at 
the level of trade of the CEP sale and at the level of trade of the HM 
sale. The adjusted CEP sales do not reflect the selling functions to 
end users, such as developing a customer base, taking sales orders, 
technical consultations, maintaining sales and billing records, product 
packing and shipping, and inventory maintenance. The HM sales reflect 
these additional selling functions performed for direct sales to end 
users. Therefore, the selling functions performed for CEP sales are 
sufficiently different than for HM sales to consider such sales to be 
at different levels of trade.
    Because we compared these CEP sales to HM sales at a different 
level of trade, we examined whether a level of trade adjustment may be 
appropriate. In this case, Daido and Enuma only sold at one level of 
trade in the HM; therefore, there is no basis upon which Daido and 
Enuma has demonstrated a consistent pattern of price differences 
between levels of trade. Further, we do not have information which 
would allow us to examine pricing patterns on Daido and Enuma's sales 
of other products, and there are no other respondents or other record 
information on which such analysis could be based.
    Because the data available do not provide an appropriate basis for 
making a level of trade adjustment, but the level of trade in the HM is 
a more advanced state of distribution than the level of trade of the 
CEP sale, a CEP offset, as requested by Daido and Enuma, is 
appropriate. We have applied the CEP offset to NV.
    We based the CEP offset amount on the amount of the HM indirect 
selling expenses. We limited the HM indirect selling expense deduction 
by the amount of the indirect selling expenses incurred on sales to the 
U.S., in accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D).

Non-shippers

    Hitachi, Pulton, and Peer stated that they did not have shipments 
during the POR, and we confirmed this with the U.S. Customs Service. 
Therefore, we are

[[Page 28171]]

treating them as non-shippers for this review, and are rescinding this 
review with respect to these companies. See Proposed Rule, 
Sec. 351.213(d)(3), (61 FR 7365). The cash deposit rates for these 
firms will continue to be the rates established in the most recently 
completed final determination, or the all-others rate if the respondent 
was never assigned its own rate in a previous segment of this 
proceeding.

Intent To Revoke

    Daido and Enuma requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b), revocation 
of the order with respect to their sales of the merchandise in question 
and submitted the certification required by 19 CFR 353.25(b)(1). In 
addition, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), Daido and Enuma 
have agreed in writing to their immediate reinstatement in the order, 
as long as any producer or reseller is subject to the order, if the 
Department concludes under 19 CFR 353.22(f) that Daido and Enuma, 
subsequent to revocation, sold merchandise at less than NV. Based on 
the preliminary results in this review and the two preceding reviews, 
Daido and Enuma have demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at 
not less than NV. If the final results of this and the two preceding 
reviews demonstrate that Daido and Enuma sold the merchandise at not 
less than NV, and if the Department determines that it is not likely 
that Daido and Enuma will sell the subject merchandise at less than NV 
in the future, we intend to revoke the order with respect to 
merchandise produced and exported by Daido and Enuma.

Preliminary Results

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Izumi................................................         3.97
      R.K. Excel...........................................         0.09
      Daido................................................         0.14
      Enuma................................................         0.09
      All Others...........................................        15.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to this proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
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, or the first working day 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written 
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal 
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited issues raised in such 
briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date 
of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the final 
results of the administrative review, which will include the results of 
its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at the 
hearing, within 180 days from the issuance of these preliminary 
results.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. 
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment 
of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the 
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews 
for all shipments of roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after 
publication date of the final results of these administrative reviews, 
as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate 
for the reviewed companies will be those rates outlined above, except 
for Daido and Enuma, which, because their weighted-average margins were 
de minimis, will be zero percent; (2) for merchandise exported by 
manufacturers or exporters not covered in these reviews but covered in 
the original LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit 
will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final 
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter 
received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in these reviews, or the original investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these reviews, 
or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the 
manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous reviews, the 
cash deposit rate will be 15.92 percent, the ``all-others'' rate 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 the 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.

    Dated: May 28, 1996.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-13963 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P