[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67345-67347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan (A-
588-028)

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

ACTION: Amended final results of antidumping duty administrative order.

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

SUMMARY: On November 10, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the 
final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan. This review 
covered six manufacturers/exporters of roller chain in Japan during the 
period April 1, 1995, through March 31, 1996: (1) Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd. 
(Daido); (2) Enuma Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Enuma); (3) Izumi Chain 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi); (4) Hitachi Metals Techno Ltd. 
(Hitachi); (5) Pulton Chain Co., Ltd. (Pulton); and (6) R.K. Excel Co., 
Ltd. (RK) (collectively, the respondents).
    Interested parties submitted ministerial error allegations with 
respect to the final results of administrative review for Daido and 
Enuma on November 17, 1997. Based on the correction of certain 
ministerial errors made in the final results of review, we are amending 
our final results of review with respect to Daido and Enuma.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Trentham or Jack Dulberger, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group II, Office Four, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4793 and (202) 482-5505, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has now amended the 
final results of this administrative review in accordance with section 
751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Act are references to the provisions 
effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to 
the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are 
to the regulations set forth at 19 CFR part 353 (1997).

Scope of Review

    The merchandise subject to this review is 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. This 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) subheading 7315.11.00 through 7619.90.00. 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs 
purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

Background

    On November 10, 1997, we published in the Federal Register our 
notice of final results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan (Notice of 
Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, from Japan (62 FR

[[Page 67346]]

60472, November 10, 1997) (Roller Chain Final FR Notice)).
    On November 17, 1997, two of the respondents in the above-
referenced review, Enuma and Daido, submitted timely written 
allegations that the Department made certain ministerial errors in the 
above-referenced administrative review. Enuma alleged two ministerial 
errors with respect to the following: (1) unmatched identical models 
within the 90-60 day rule period and (2) a data input error by 
respondent in the sales database. Daido alleged five ministerial errors 
with respect to the following three issues: (1) unmatched identical 
models within the 90-60 day rule period, (2) unmatched U.S. sales with 
identical sales in the home market database, and (3) data input errors 
by respondent in the sales database. Petitioner did not allege the 
existence of ministerial errors, nor has petitioner commented on 
respondent's allegations. For a complete discussion of the allegations, 
see the Department's December 17, 1997, Decision Memorandum Re: 
Ministerial Error Allegation in the Antidumping Administrative Review 
on Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, from Japan (95-96).
    As discussed below, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have 
determined that certain ministerial errors were made in our margin 
calculations for Enuma and Daido.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

    Enuma
Issue 1: Unmatched U.S. Sales--Computer Searching Error
    Enuma states that the Department incorrectly identified three U.S. 
sales as not having a home market match within the comparison period 
(i.e., the 90-60 day period). Enuma contends that the printout of its 
November 15, 1996, sales tape, which the Department used in its final 
results calculations, shows home market sales of the identical model, 
during the 90-60 day period for these three sales. Enuma requests that 
the Department correct this error and to review its program to 
determine if any other currently designated unmatched U.S. sales have 
matches and to revise the dumping margins accordingly.
    DOC Position: We agree with Enuma and have corrected this 
ministerial error. After review of Enuma's margin program, we found 
that we inadvertently failed to include a step in the product matching 
section of the program. This resulted in a failure to properly identify 
all home market sales of the identical model during the 90-60 day 
window period. Correction of the margin program resulted in matching 
two of the three previously unmatched U.S. sales identified by Enuma in 
its November 17, 1997, clerical error allegation and an additional 
unmatched U.S. sale not identified by Enuma. The third U.S. sale 
identified by Enuma could not be matched to the home market sale 
identified by Enuma because the home market sale was a sale to an 
affiliated customer which was determined not to be at arm's length and 
was subsequently excluded from our analysis. See Roller Chain Final FR 
Notice.
Issue 2: Unmatched U.S. Sales--Computer Input Error
    In two instances, Enuma states that it inadvertently assigned 
slightly different control numbers for the same products on its home 
market and U.S. sales tapes. In the first instance, Enuma states that 
an extra digit was mistakenly added to the end of a home market control 
number. In the other, Enuma states that an extra digit was added to the 
end of a U.S. control number. As a result, Enuma argues that U.S. sales 
that should have had identical home market matches went unmatched. 
Enuma requests that we revise the control numbers for those two models 
so that the control numbers on both the home market and U.S. sales 
tapes are identical.
    DOC Position: Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act), authorizes the Department to establish procedures for the 
correction of ministerial errors in final determinations. Section 
751(h) provides that the term ``ministerial'' error includes errors in 
addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors 
resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any 
other type of unintentional error which the administering authority 
considers ministerial.
    The Department's implementing regulations at 19 CFR 353.28 
establish which errors the Department considers ministerial. A 
``ministerial error'' is defined under 19 CFR 353.28 as: an error in 
addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error 
resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any 
other type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers 
ministerial.
    The Department interprets the authority granted to it by Section 
751(h) of the Act as allowing the Department to make post-final results 
corrections only for its own (``ministerial'') errors. See Preamble of 
19 CFR Sec. 351.224 (emphasis in original). Therefore, the Department 
does not believe that it may make corrections after final results of 
administrative review for errors committed by a party to the 
proceeding. Consequently, we made no revision to Enuma's margin 
calculation with regard to Enuma's alleged error.

Daido

Issue 1: Unmatched U.S. Sales--Computer Searching Error
    Daido states that the Department incorrectly applied the 90-60 day 
window in its attempt to match U.S. and home market sales of identical 
or similar merchandise within the contemporaneous time period. 
Specifically, Daido states that the Department only applied the 90-60 
day rule in a forward direction (i.e., 60 days forward), but did not 
search for home market sales 90 days prior to the date of the U.S. 
sale. As a result, Daido maintains that numerous sales were designated 
as unmatched U.S. sales.
    DOC Position: We agree with Daido and have corrected this 
ministerial error. After review of Daido's margin program, we found 
that we inadvertently failed to include a step in the product matching 
section of the program. This resulted in a failure to properly search 
for home market sales 90 days prior to the date of the U.S. sale. 
Correcting the margin program resulted in matching previously unmatched 
U.S. sales as identified by Daido in its November 17, 1997, clerical 
error allegation.
Issue 2: Unmatched U.S. Sales with Identical Sales in the Home Market 
Database
    Daido states that its home market portion of its questionnaire 
response contained two matching control number fields--one for CEP 
sales matching purposes and another for EP sales matching purposes. 
Daido claims that it was necessary to report two control number fields 
in the database because, depending on the type of transaction (i.e., 
CEP or EP), there were different codes applied to identical 
merchandise. Daido states that the Department correctly matched CEP 
sales against sales with an identical control number in the home market 
control number field corresponding to CEP sales. However, Daido argues 
that, the Department failed to match EP sales with an identical control 
number in the home market control number field corresponding to EP 
sales. Daido claims that this failure resulted in the Department 
designating these sales as unmatched.
    DOC Position: We agree with Daido and have corrected this 
ministerial error. After review of Daido's margin

[[Page 67347]]

program, we found that we inadvertently failed to include a step in the 
product matching section of the program. This resulted in a failure to 
properly search for identical control numbers in both of the home 
market control number fields for a given U.S. sale. Correcting the 
margin program resulted in matching previously unmatched U.S. sales as 
identified by Daido in its November 17, 1997, clerical error 
allegation.
Issue 3: Unmatched U.S. Sales--Computer Input Error by Respondent
    Daido states that, in three instances, it inadvertently assigned 
slightly different control numbers for the same products on its home 
market and U.S. sales tapes. Specifically, in the first instance, Daido 
states that it made home market sales of a model identical to one sold 
in the United States. However, Daido states that although the digits in 
the control number are exactly the same in the U.S. and home market 
sales tapes, it inadvertently coded the home market model with a space 
in the middle. In the second instance, Daido claims that an extra digit 
was mistakenly added to the end of a home market control number. In the 
final instance, Daido maintains that although for one model the control 
number in the U.S. sales listing differs from the control number in the 
home market sales listing by one digit (i.e., the use of a ``C'' in the 
home market and a ``D'' in the United States), the products are 
identical. As a result of these three errors, certain U.S. sales went 
unmatched. Daido requests that we revise the matching control numbers 
in the three instances listed above so that the control numbers on both 
the home market and U.S. sales tapes are identical.
    DOC Position: The Department does not believe that it may make 
corrections after final results of administrative review for errors 
committed by a party to the proceeding. (See Enuma issue number 2). 
Consequently, we made no revision to Daido's margin calculation with 
regard to these alleged errors.

Amended Final Results

    As a result of our correction of the ministerial errors, we have 
determined the following amended margins exist for Enuma and Daido for 
the period April 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Manufacturer/exporter                     Percentage*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daido......................................................         3.09
Enuma......................................................        1.55 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Amended Weighted-Average Margin                                       

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly 
to the U.S. Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following cash 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 these amended final results of administrative review, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate 
for each reviewed company named above will be the rate as stated above; 
(2) for previously investigated or reviewed 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, 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 
review, the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters 
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 administrative review 
(48 FR 51801, November 14, 1983).
    This notice serves as the 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 order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
    These amended final results of administrative review and notice are 
in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR 353.28(c).

    Dated: December 17, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-33606 Filed 12-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P