[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18294-18295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8695]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-821]


Notice of Court Decision and Suspension of Liquidation: Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, From Germany

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On March 8, 2000, in Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG, et al., v. 
United States, Consol. Court No. 96-10-02298, Slip Op. 00-25, a lawsuit 
challenging the Department of Commerce's final affirmative antidumping 
duty determination of large newspaper printing presses and components 
thereof, whether assembled or unassembled, from Germany, the Court of 
International Trade affirmed the Department of Commerce's remand 
determination and entered a judgement order. In its remand 
determination, the Department addressed issues of collapsing and cost-
averaging relevant to producer/exporter MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG 
and its wholly-owned subsidiary MAN Plamag Druckmaschinen AG. As a 
result, the final antidumping duty rate for MAN Roland Druckmaschinen 
AG and MAN Plamag Druckmaschinen AG has increased from 30.72 percent to 
39.53 percent ad valorem. This decision was not in harmony with the 
Department's original final determination.
    Consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 
1990), the Department of Commerce will direct the Customs Service to 
change the cash deposit rate being used in connection with the 
suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise and liquidate 
entries of the subject merchandise during the period March 1, 1996 
through August 31, 1997, at the amended rate, as appropriate, once 
there is a ``final and conclusive'' decision in this case.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger at (202) 482-4136 or 
Irene Darzenta Tzafolias at (202) 482-0922, Office of Antidumping/
Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 23, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published notice of its final determination of less-than-fair-value 
(LTFV) investigation of large newspaper printing presses and components 
thereof, whether assembled or unassembled (LNPP), from Germany. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, from Germany, 61 FR 38166 (July 23, 1996) (LNPP Germany 
Final Determination). In the final determination of the LTFV 
investigation, the Department established a final dumping margin of 
30.80 percent ad valorem for MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG (MAN Roland) 
and All Others (except Koenig Bauer-Albert AG (KBA) for which a 46.40 
percent margin was established based on adverse facts available). On 
September 4, 1996, the Department published an antidumping duty order 
correcting ministerial errors made in the final determination and 
instructing the Customs Service to collect cash deposits at the rate of 
30.72 percent ad valorem for MAN Roland and All Others (except KBA as 
indicated above), on entries of the subject merchandise entered or 
withdrawn from warehouse on or after that date. See Notice of 
Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components 
Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Germany, 61 FR 46623 
(September 4, 1996).
    Following publication of the Department's antidumping duty order, 
the respondent MAN Roland and the petitioner Goss Graphic System, Inc., 
filed a lawsuit with the Court of International Trade (CIT) challenging 
various aspects of the Department's final determination of the LTFV 
investigation. In its first decision in this case on June 23, 1998, 
Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG, et al., v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 834, 
849-850, 854-855 (CIT 1998), Slip Op. 98-83 at 28-30, 40-43, the CIT 
issued an order remanding two issues to the Department. In its remand 
instructions, the Court ordered the

[[Page 18295]]

Department to reconsider its decision not to combine certain production 
costs for MAN Roland and its affiliate MAN Plamag Druckmaschinen AG 
(MAN Plamag), and granted the Department's request to recalculate MAN 
Roland's selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses using an 
appropriate cost allocation ratio. In its final remand determination on 
September 17, 1998, the Department declined to compute a single, 
weighted-average cost for MAN Roland and Man Plamag because the 
companies failed to satisfy the fundamental condition for averaging 
costs--that the products manufactured at their facilities be 
sufficiently similar in physical characteristics, such that they could 
be considered identical for product comparison purposes. However, the 
Department recalculated MAN Roland's SG&A expenses using an appropriate 
allocation ratio. See September 17, 1998, Final Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Redetermination 1) at 9-10, 
13-14. As a result of our recalculations pursuant to Court remand, the 
antidumping margin for MAN Roland changed from 30.72 to 39.60 percent.
    In a later decision on March 16, 1999, Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG, et 
al., v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 2d 280, 287-288 (CIT 1999), Slip Op. 
99-25 at 16-18, the CIT affirmed the Department's recalculation of MAN 
Roland's SG&A expenses, but did not affirm the Department's final 
remand results pertaining to the issue of combining certain production 
costs of MAN Roland and its affiliate. The CIT held that the Department 
did not address the threshold question of whether MAN Roland and MAN 
Plamag should be collapsed in order to properly determine whether their 
production costs should be averaged, and remanded the issue to the 
Department again for reconsideration and explanation consistent with 
its opinion. Upon remand, on August 10, 1999, the Department found that 
MAN Roland and MAN Plamag should have been collapsed as a single entity 
in performing its antidumping analysis in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(f). Moreover, the Department determined that treating these 
affiliated producers as a single entity necessitated that the inputs 
transferred between them be valued at the cost of producing the input, 
and adjusted its CV calculations accordingly. Furthermore, in light of 
the identical merchandise requirement for production cost averaging 
purposes, the Department maintained its previous remand determination 
not to weight-average the production costs of the two affiliated 
companies. In addition, because MAN Plamag made no sales of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation, 
the Department's decision to collapse MAN Roland and MAN Plamag did not 
require any changes to the sales side of the Department's original 
final margin analysis. However, in contrast to its original final 
determination, the Department applied the same margin, as amended based 
on the above-described cost adjustments, to both MAN Roland and MAN 
Plamag. See August 10, 1998, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant 
to Court Remand (Redetermination 2) at 5-8. As a result of the 
adjustments made in Redetermination 2, the revised antidumping margin 
for both MAN Roland and MAN Plamag changed from 39.60 percent (margin 
calculated based on Redetermination 1) to 39.53 percent.
    In sum, as a result of the two remands in this case, the final 
dumping rate for MAN Roland and its affiliate MAN Plamag has increased 
from 30.72 percent (the original final LTFV margin for MAN Roland) to 
39.53 percent ad valorem. The rate for All Others changes accordingly.

Suspension of Liquidation

    In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. 
Cir. 1990) (Timken), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(CAFC) held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of 
the CIT or the CAFC which is not in harmony with the Department's 
determination. Publication of this notice fulfills this obligation. The 
CAFC also held that the Department must suspend liquidation of the 
subject merchandise until there is a ``final and conclusive'' decision 
on the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken, the Department must suspend 
liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the 
period to appeal the CIT's March 8, 2000 ruling, or if that ruling is 
appealed, pending a final decision by the CAFC. However, because 
entries of the subject merchandise already are being suspended pursuant 
to the antidumping duty order in effect, the Department need not order 
the Customs Service to suspend liquidation. Further, consistent with 
Timken, the Department will order the Customs Service to change the 
relevant cash deposit rates in the event that the CIT's ruling is not 
appealed or the CAFC issues a final decision affirming the CIT's 
ruling.

Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-8695 Filed 4-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P