[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55243-55248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26592]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-837]
Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether
Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the respondents, Tokyo Kikai
Seisakusho, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., the Department
of Commerce is conducting administrative reviews of the antidumping
duty order on large newspaper printing presses and components thereof,
whether assembled or unassembled, from Japan. These reviews cover
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.,
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United
States. The periods of review for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. are
September 5, 1996, through August 31, 1997, and September 1, 1997,
through August 31, 1998. The period of review for Tokyo Kikai
Seisakusho is September 1, 1997, through August 31, 1998.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal
value for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct
the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. For Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, we have preliminarily determined
that sales have not been made below normal value. If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we
will instruct the Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on
entries subject to this review. Interested parties are invited to
comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 12, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dinah McDougall, Kate Johnson, or
David J. Goldberger, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Import
Administration--Room B099, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
[[Page 55244]]
482-3773, 482-4929, or 482-4136, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (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 (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351
(April 1998).
Background
On July 23, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register,
61 FR 38139, the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on
large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, whether
assembled or unassembled (LNPP), from Japan. We published an
antidumping duty order on September 4, 1996 (61 FR 46621).
On September 30, 1997, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI)
requested that the Department defer for one year the initiation of its
review of entries subject to the above-referenced order covering the
period September 5, 1996, to August 31, 1997. See Initiation of
Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews,
Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review,
62 FR 58705 (October 30, 1997).
On September 16, 1998, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an
administrative review of this order for the period September 1, 1997,
through August 31, 1998 (63 FR 49543). The Department received a
request for an administrative review of MHI and Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho,
Ltd. (TKS) by MHI and TKS, respectively. We published a notice of
initiation of the MHI reviews on October 29, 1998 (63 FR 58009). With
respect to MHI's sale to the United States, we extended the period of
review (POR) to reflect the extended period of time over which the
entries and production processes occurred. The initiation of the TKS
review was published on November 30, 1998 (63 FR 65748).
On November 17, 1998, and January 21, 1999, Goss Graphic Systems,
Inc. (the petitioner) requested that the Department determine whether
antidumping duties have been absorbed during the POR. On February 5,
1999, the Department requested proof that unaffiliated purchasers will
ultimately pay the antidumping duties to be assessed on entries during
the review periods.
On March 4, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for the
preliminary results in these reviews until September 30, 1999. See
Postponement of Preliminary Results of the First and Second
Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order, 64 FR 10444.
On July 20, 1999, the Department published a Notice of Initiation
of Changed Circumstances Review of the Antidumping Duty Order pursuant
to a request by the petitioner to partially revoke the antidumping duty
order on the subject merchandise for LNPPs that meet a specific set of
criteria; namely, imports of the elements and components of LNPP
systems, and additions thereto, imported to fulfill a contract for one
or more complete LNPP systems which feature a 22 inch cut-off, 50 inch
web width and a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour,
utilizing exclusively the type of printing unit and color keyless
inking system detailed in the petitioner's request, in a tower
configuration coupled with folder, reel tension paster, conveyance and
access apparatus, and computerized control system meeting all of the
specifications described in Goss' request (see 64 FR 38888). The
changed circumstances review is currently underway as a separate
proceeding and the Department will make its preliminary determination
in that proceeding after these preliminary results.
The Department is conducting these reviews in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Act.
Scope of the Reviews
The products covered by these reviews are large newspaper printing
presses, including press systems, press additions and press components,
whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that
are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more
than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page
in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of
the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of
type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper.
In addition to press systems, the scope of these reviews includes
the five press system components. They are: (1) A printing unit, which
is any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process
(full) color; (2) a reel tension paster, which is any component that
feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in width
into a subject printing unit; (3) a folder, which is a module or
combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering
the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than
two pages in width into a newspaper format; (4) conveyance and access
apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two
newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production process and
which provides structural support and access; and (5) a computerized
control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software
designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the
functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press
components.
A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the
press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate
such components into an existing press system.
Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems,
press additions, and press components are typically shipped either
partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are
assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation
process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection
of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large
newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components,
regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-
subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope
of these reviews. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP
system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at
least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major
LNPP components of which they are a part.
For purposes of these reviews, the following definitions apply
irrespective of any different definition that may be found in Customs
rulings, U.S. Customs law or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS): (1) The term ``unassembled'' means fully or
partially unassembled or disassembled; and (2) the term ``incomplete''
means lacking one or more elements with which the LNPP is intended to
be equipped in order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP system, addition
or component.
This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or
replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not
integral to the
[[Page 55245]]
original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are separately
identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or not shipped in
combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the scope of
these reviews. Used presses are also not subject to this scope. Used
presses are those that have been previously sold in an arm's-length
transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce newspapers in the
ordinary course of business.
Further, these reviews cover all current and future printing
technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited
to, lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress
systems. The products covered by these reviews are imported into the
United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00,
8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper
printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and
8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems
may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26,
8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written
description of the scope of these reviews is dispositive.
Duty Absorption
On November 17, 1998, and on January 21, 1999, the petitioner
requested that the Department determine whether antidumping duties had
been absorbed during the POR. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides for
the Department, if requested, to determine during an administrative
review initiated two or four years after the publication of the order,
whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or
exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States
through an affiliated importer. In this case, both MHI and TKS sold to
the United States through an importer that is affiliated within the
meaning of section 751(a)(4) of the Act.
Section 351.213(j)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that
during any administrative review covering all or part of a period
falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of
the publication of an antidumping order, the Department will conduct a
duty absorption review, if requested. Because these reviews were
initiated two years after the publication of the order, we are making a
duty absorption determination in this segment of the proceeding.
The Department's February 5, 1999, antidumping questionnaire
requested proof that unaffiliated purchasers will ultimately pay the
antidumping duties to be assessed on entries during the review periods.
On March 8, 1999, MHI, instead of providing the requested data, argued
that the object of a duty absorption inquiry--to ascertain whether a
respondent changed its conduct after an antidumping duty order was
imposed--is inapplicable in MHI's case because the sole U.S. sale under
review in this segment of the proceeding, the Washington Post sale, was
made prior to the imposition of an antidumping duty order. However, the
fact that the date of sale occurred prior to the imposition of the
order is not relevant in this case, where entries pursuant to this sale
occurred during the POR. Moreover, based on MHI's contractual
information on the record (see Memo to the File from the Team dated
September 30, 1999), we cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchaser
in the United States will pay the ultimately assessed duty.
Furthermore, because we have preliminarily determined that there is a
dumping margin on MHI's U.S. sale entered during the POR, we
preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been absorbed by MHI on
its single U.S. sale. With respect to TKS, we preliminarily find that
there is no duty absorption, as we have preliminarily determined that
there is no dumping margin with respect to its U.S. sales.
Date of Sale
While the Department normally will use the date of invoice as the
date of sale, we have determined in this case that the contract date
better reflects the date on which the producer/exporter established the
material terms of sale. Where the record demonstrates that the contract
established the material terms of sale, we used the contract date as
the date of sale for the transactions examined in this proceeding.
In the case of MHI's sale to the Washington Post, we used the April
26, 1996, revised contract date, rather than the May 16, 1995, date of
the original contract, as the date of sale for currency conversion
purposes. The Department has a longstanding practice which bases the
date of sale on the date when all the essential terms (usually price
and quantity) are firmly established and no longer within the control
of the parties. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14067 (March
29, 1996). Based on our analysis of the information submitted for the
record, we have determined that the essential terms of the sale were
not established until the April 1996 contract date. In particular, the
April 1996 contract made the following significant changes from the May
1995 contract: (a) Revised the contract price, (b) substantially
altered the payment schedule, and (c) revised other terms, such as
service agreements, that affected the net price to the customer.
With regard to TKS, we used the contract date as the date of sale.
We determined that the contract date is more appropriate than the
invoice date in this instance because the contract date reflects the
date when the essential terms of the sale were established.
Product Comparisons
Although the home market was viable for both respondents, in
accordance with section 773 of the Act, we based normal value (NV) on
constructed value (CV) because we determined that the unique, custom-
built nature of each LNPP sold does not permit proper price-to-price
comparisons. (See September 30, 1999, Memorandum to Louis Apple from
The Team Re: Determining the Appropriate Basis for Normal Value.)
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether MHI's and TKS's sales of LNPPs to the United
States were made at less than normal value, we compared constructed
export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the ``Constructed Export
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
Constructed Export Price and Further Manufacturing
MHI
We calculated CEP, in accordance with sections 772(b) and (d) of
the Act, for MHI's POR sale because MHI's affiliated U.S. sales agent
engaged in a broad range of activities including coordination of
installation, which we have classified as further manufacturing.
We calculated CEP based on the packed, installed price to an
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made deductions for the
following charges: net trade-in allowance; foreign inland freight
charges; foreign brokerage and handling charges; bonded warehouse
expenses; international freight expenses; combined foreign inland, U.S.
inland, and marine insurance expenses; Japanese export insurance and
U.S. inland insurance expenses; combined U.S. brokerage and handling
and inland freight charges; and U.S. Customs duty. We also made
deductions for commissions, imputed credit, and direct training
expenses.
[[Page 55246]]
We deducted those indirect selling expenses that related to
economic activity in the United States, including indirect training
expenses.
As in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, we calculated
an imputed credit expense by multiplying an interest rate by the net
balance of production costs incurred and progress payments made during
the construction period. MHI reported this expense using a Japanese
yen-denominated, short-term interest rate for the portion of imputed
credit expenses incurred prior to shipment. We recalculated MHI's
reported imputed credit expense to reflect MHI's U.S.-dollar-
denominated, short-term interest rate for the entire balance,
consistent with our imputed credit expense methodology that relies on
the interest rate applicable to the currency in which the sale is made.
We also corrected the imputed credit expense calculation by converting
the yen-denominated production costs into U.S. dollars based on the
exchange rate in effect on the date of the MHI sale.
In addition, we deducted the cost of further manufacturing or
assembly, including installation expenses. We classified installation
charges as part of further manufacturing, because the U.S. installation
process involves extensive technical activities on the part of
engineers and installation supervisors. See Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 807, 815-16 (CIT 1998) (Mitsubishi).
As for the further manufacturing cost, we relied on MHI's reported
amount with the exception that we recalculated the general and
administrative (G&A) and interest expense rates based on the entire POR
and not just part of the period as reported.
Further, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
TKS
We calculated CEP, in accordance with sections 772 (b) and (d) of
the Act, for TKS's POR sale because this sale took place after
importation by a seller affiliated with the producer/exporter and
because the sale involved further manufacturing in the United States.
We calculated the CEP sale based on the packed price to an
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made deductions for the
following charges: foreign inland freight to port in Japan; foreign
brokerage and handling; international freight; combined marine and
foreign insurance; U.S. brokerage and handling; U.S. Customs duty;
unloading expenses; and cargo survey fees. We also deducted those
selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since TKS's calculated imputed credit amount reflected
revenue rather than an expense, we appropriately added to CEP the
amount that related to the economic activity in the United States
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also deducted the cost of any further manufacturing or assembly,
including testing and technical service expenses. We classified testing
and technical service expenses as part of further manufacturing,
because the U.S. installation process involves extensive technical
activities on the part of engineers and installation supervisors (see
Mitsubishi). In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we made
an adjustment for CEP profit.
Cost of Production Analysis
The Department disregarded certain sales made by MHI and TKS during
the LTFV investigation pursuant to a finding that sales were made below
cost. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act,
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that respondents MHI
and TKS made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of
producing the merchandise in the current review periods. As a result,
the Department initiated investigations to determine whether the
respondents made home market sales during the POR at prices below their
COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
We compared the COP figures to home market sales of the foreign
like product as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to
determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. In
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below
the COP, we examined whether: (1) Within an extended period of time,
such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were
made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time.
The results of our cost tests for both MHI and TKS indicated that
certain home market sales were at prices below COP, and would not
permit the full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of
time. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore
excluded the below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining
above-cost sales as the basis for determining selling expenses and
profit.
Constructed Value
MHI
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials, fabrication,
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and U.S. packing
costs as reported in the U.S. sales database. In accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred
and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and
sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the foreign country.
We relied on MHI's reported CV amounts with the following
exception. We recalculated the G&A and interest expense rate, applied
to the cost of manufacturing (COM) and included in the cost of
production (COP) and CV, to include G&A and interest for all three
years of production.
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market
selling and commission expense rate, calculated based on sales of the
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade, and applied
this rate to the U.S. COM. We excluded from this analysis a sale made
to an affiliated party.
In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, we added the
U.S. packing costs to a CV net of packing.
TKS
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials, fabrication,
SG&A and U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales database. In
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the
amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.
We relied on the reported CV amounts with the following exceptions.
We recalculated the G&A rate applied to COM in the calculation of COP
and CV to include additional operating income and expenses. We also
recalculated the G&A and interest expense rate to include G&A and
interest for all fiscal years of the production period.
For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market
direct and indirect selling expense rates, calculated based on sales of
the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade, and
applied these rates to the U.S. COM.
In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, we added U.S.
packing costs to a CV net of packing.
[[Page 55247]]
Price-to-CV Comparisons
For CEP to CV comparisons, we deducted from CV the weighted-average
home market direct selling expenses, including imputed credit, pursuant
to section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We calculated imputed credit for CV
purposes in accordance with the methodology explained in the
``Constructed Export Price'' section of this notice. We imputed credit
expenses for CV using the weighted-average, yen-based, short-term
interest rate reported for the POR, since home market sales were
denominated in yen.
Level of Trade and CEP Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price (EP) or CEP
transaction. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the
comparison market or, when NV is based on CV as is the case in these
reviews, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and
profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-price
sale, which is usually from the exporter to an unaffiliated U.S.
customer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the
exporter to an affiliated importer, after the deductions required under
section 772(d) of the Act.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP
sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997).
For CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than
the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the
CEP offset provision). The CEP offset is calculated as the lesser of
the following:
1. The indirect selling expenses on the comparison market sale, or
2. The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price
in calculating CEP.
In their respective questionnaire responses, MHI and TKS each
reported two different LOTs--one for the U.S. market and another for
the comparison market--and both reported that comparison-market sales
are made at a more advanced LOT than U.S. sales. Both respondents
requested that the Department perform a CEP offset in lieu of a LOT
adjustment, as they were unable to quantify the price differences
related to sales made at the different LOTs. To determine whether a CEP
offset was warranted, we compared the distribution systems used by the
respondents for their comparison market and U.S. sales, including
selling functions and class of customer, for each claimed LOT, after
making the appropriate deductions under section 772(d) of the Act. Both
respondents reported that they sold through one channel of distribution
in the comparison market, and through a different channel in the United
States. In the comparison market, MHI and TKS sold subject merchandise
directly to unaffiliated customers, while in the United States, they
both sold the subject merchandise through their affiliates, MLP U.S.A.,
Inc. and TKS (U.S.A), respectively, who then sold the subject
merchandise directly to unaffiliated purchasers. For MHI, we compared
the selling functions and the level of activity in each distribution
channel, and found that several of the functions performed in the
comparison-market either were not performed in connection with the U.S.
sale at the export LOT, or were performed at a significantly lower
level of activity on the part of MHI. These selling functions include:
pre-sale consultations, advertising, market research and identifying
potential customers, arranging for transportation of merchandise,
receipt of proposal requests, customer invoicing, payment collection,
and post-sale services.
For TKS, we compared the selling functions and the level of
activity in each distribution channel, and found that several of the
functions performed in the comparison-market either were not performed
in connection with the U.S. sale at the export LOT, or were performed
only by the affiliated company, TKS (U.S.A.). These selling functions
included: contract negotiations, plant layout and design, after-sale
service, parts inventory maintenance, and operator training.
As we have determined that installation expenses incurred on the
U.S. sales should be treated as further manufacturing expenses (rather
than movement expenses, as claimed by MHI, or direct selling expenses,
as claimed by TKS), the CEP after deduction for all expenses under
section 772(d) of the Act reflects an uninstalled LNPP. Supporting this
contention is the fact that many of the same selling functions that are
performed at the comparison-market LOT are performed not at the export
LOT, but by the respondents' U.S. affiliates. Based on this analysis,
we conclude that the comparison-market and U.S. channels of
distribution and the sales functions associated with each are
sufficiently different so as to constitute two different levels of
trade, and we find that the comparison-market sales are made at a more
advanced LOT than are CEP sales. As there is no comparison-market LOT
that is comparable to that in the United States, we have no basis for
determining the extent to which the difference in LOTs affects price
comparability. Therefore, we performed a CEP offset to NV in accordance
with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act by deducting the lesser of home
market indirect selling expenses or the sum of the U.S. indirect
selling expenses.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions, in accordance with section 773(A)(a)
of the Act, based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates
of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of these reviews, we preliminarily determine that the
weighted-average dumping margins for the respective PORs are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd....... 9/5/96-8/31/98 55.28
Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho................. 9/1/97-8/31/98 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55248]]
We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this
notice, or the first workday thereafter.
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested
parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the
respective case briefs, may be submitted not later than 30 days and 37
days, respectively, from the date of publication of these preliminary
results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties who submit case briefs
or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the
argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the
arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes,
regulations, and cases cited.
The Department will issue the final results of these administrative
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days
after the date of publication of this notice.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR
351.310(c).
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the
Customs Service upon completion of these reviews. The final results of
these reviews shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping
duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of these
reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties. We will instruct
the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries covered by these reviews if any importer-specific assessment
rate calculated in the final results of these reviews is above de
minimis. For assessment purposes, we intend to calculate importer-
specific assessment rates for the subject merchandise by aggregating
the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales examined and dividing
this amount by the total entered value of the sales examined.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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.
Cash Deposit Requirements
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 the
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed
companies will be those established in the final results of these
reviews, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore,
de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(d)(1), in which case
the cash deposit rate will be zero; (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 these reviews, a
prior 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) the cash
deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to
be 58.69 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV
investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
These administrative reviews and notice are published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-26592 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P