[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54019-54023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5000]


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

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 Changed 
Circumstances Review

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

SUMMARY: On May 10, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
self-initiated a changed circumstances review to consider information 
contained in a recent Federal court decision, Goss International Corp. 
v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., 321 F.Supp.2d 1039 (N.D. Iowa 2004) 
(Goss Int'l). As detailed in our ``Notice of Initiation of the Changed 
Circumstances Review,'' evidence was presented in that court proceeding 
demonstrating that Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. (TKS) intentionally 
provided false information regarding its sale to the Dallas Morning 
News (DMN), the subject of the Department's 1997-1998 administrative 
review. After consideration of comments and information provided for 
this review, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to take 
the following course of action in order to protect the integrity of the 
Department's proceedings: (1) Revise TKS' margin for the 1997-1998 
review to apply a rate of 59.67 percent based on adverse facts 
available; (2) rescind the revocation of the antidumping duty order for 
TKS because TKS no longer qualifies for revocation based on three 
consecutive administrative reviews resulting in zero dumping margins; 
and (3) reconsider the revocation of the order under the sunset review 
provision of the statute (section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act)). If these preliminary results are confirmed in the 
final results, the Department will revise TKS' margin for the 1997-1998 
review, rescind the revocation of the antidumping duty order for TKS, 
and initiate a new sunset review to reconsider the revocation of this 
order. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Kate Johnson, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4136 and (202) 482-4929, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 4, 1996, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on 
large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, whether 
assembled or unassembled, from Japan (LNPPs) (61 FR 46621) (Amended 
Final and Order). One of the producers/exporters covered by the order 
was TKS. Its rate from the less-than-fair-value investigation was 56.28 
percent. The Department conducted administrative reviews of TKS for the 
following periods: September 1, 1997-August 31, 1998, September 1, 
1998-August 31, 1999, and September 1, 1999-August 31, 2000. The 
administrative review for the 2000-2001 review period was rescinded. A 
zero margin was found for TKS in the 1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-
2000 review periods. On January 16, 2002, the antidumping duty order 
was revoked with respect to TKS (see Large Newspaper Printing Presses 
and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan: 
Final Results of Antidumping

[[Page 54020]]

Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part, 67 FR 2190) based on 
the three consecutive reviews resulting in zero dumping margins (see 19 
CFR 351.222(b)). On February 25, 2002, the Department revoked the 
antidumping duty order under a five-year sunset review pursuant to 
section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act because the only domestic interested 
party in the sunset review, Goss International Corporation (Goss), 
withdrew its participation and thus its interest in the review. See 
Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether 
Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan (A-588-837) and Germany (A-428-
821): Notice of Final Results of Five-Year Sunset Reviews and 
Revocation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 67 FR 8522 (February 25, 2002).
    On May 5, 2005, the Department self-initiated a changed 
circumstances review to consider information contained in a recent 
Federal court decision, Goss Int'l. See Large Newspaper Printing 
Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from 
Japan: Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review, 70 FR 24524 (May 10, 
2005). In that court proceeding, evidence was presented demonstrating 
that TKS provided false information regarding its sale to the DMN, the 
sale that was the subject of the Department's 1997-1998 administrative 
review. The Department placed the Goss Int'l decision and documents 
from the Goss Int'l record on the public record of this changed 
circumstances review in separate memoranda.
    On June 9, 2005, Goss, TKS, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 
(MHI) provided comments in response to the Department's request for 
comments in the notice of initiation of this changed circumstances 
review. Goss' comments included documents from the Goss Int'l record 
and from the Department's administrative reviews of the antidumping 
duty order. On June 20, 2005, Goss and TKS provided comments in 
response to the parties' respective June 9, 2005, comments.
    On July 19, 2005, TKS requested that the Department seek further 
information about Goss' claim that it is currently a domestic 
manufacturer of LNPPs. Goss responded to TKS' letter in an August 11, 
2005, submission.

Scope of the Changed Circumstances Review

    The products covered by this changed circumstances review 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 the review 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 (RTP), 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 this review. 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 the review, 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 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 this review. 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.
    Also excluded from the scope, in accordance with the Department's 
determination in a previous changed circumstances review of the 
antidumping duty order which resulted in the partial revocation of the 
order with respect to certain merchandise, are elements and components 
of LNPP systems, and additions thereto, which feature a 22-inch cut-
off, 50-inch web width and a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies 
per hour. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses Components Thereof, 
Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: Final Results of Changed 
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to 
Revoke Antidumping Duty Order, In Part, 64 FR 72315 (December 27, 
1999). In addition to the specifications set out in this paragraph, all 
of which must be met in order for the product to be excluded from the 
scope of the review, the product must also meet all of the 
specifications detailed in the five numbered sections following this 
paragraph. If one or more of these criteria is not fulfilled, the 
product is not excluded from the scope of the review.
    1. Printing Unit: A printing unit which is a color keyless blanket-
to-blanket tower unit with a fixed gain infeed and fixed gain outfeed, 
with a rated speed no greater than 75,000 copies per hour, which 
includes the following features:

[[Page 54021]]

    Each tower consisting of four levels, one or more of which must be 
populated.
    Plate cylinders which contain slot lock-ups and blanket cylinders 
which contain reel rod lock-ups both of which are of solid carbon steel 
with nickel plating and with bearers at both ends which are configured 
in-line with bearers of other cylinders.
    Keyless inking system which consists of a passive feed ink delivery 
system, an eight roller ink train, and a non-anilox and non-porous 
metering roller.
    The dampener system which consists of a two nozzle per page 
spraybar and two roller dampener with one chrome drum and one form 
roller.
    The equipment contained in the color keyless ink delivery system is 
designed to achieve a constant, uniform feed of ink film across the 
cylinder without ink keys. This system requires use of keyless ink 
which accepts greater water content.
    2. Folder: A module which is a double 3:2 rotary folder with 160 
pages collect capability and double (over and under) delivery, with a 
cut-off length of 22 inches. The upper section consists of three-high 
double formers (total of 6) with six sets of nipping rollers.
    3. RTP: A component which is of the two-arm design with core drives 
and core brakes, designed for 50 inch diameter rolls; and arranged in 
the press line in the back-to-back configuration (left and right hand 
load pairs).
    4. Conveyance and Access Apparatus: Conveyance and access apparatus 
capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two newspaper 
broadsheets across through the production process, and a drive system 
which is of conventional shafted design.
    5. Computerized Control System: 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.
    Further, this review covers 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 this review 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 the review is dispositive.

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    As noted above in the ``Background'' section, the Department has 
examined documents from Goss Int'l and from the 1997-1998 
administrative review, all of which have been placed on the record of 
this review, and has determined that TKS provided false information in 
the context of the 1997-1998 administrative review.
    Information on the record of this changed circumstances review 
clearly demonstrates that TKS granted DMN a $1 million rebate and 
credits for spare parts tied to the sale reviewed, yet it did not 
disclose this information in its questionnaire responses submitted in 
the 1997-1998 administrative review. TKS was specifically asked in the 
questionnaire issued in the 1997-1998 administrative review whether it 
had granted any discounts or rebates in connection with the subject 
sale. TKS unequivocally stated that ``TKS did not provide any discounts 
to the contract price,'' and ``TKS did not provide any rebates to the 
contract price.'' See pages 16 and 17, respectively, of the March 29, 
1999, Section C response (included on the record of this review as an 
attachment to the Memorandum to the File dated August 23, 2005, which 
also includes the certifications from the responsible TKS official and 
TKS' counsel that the information in the response was accurate and 
complete). The changed circumstances review record shows that TKS did 
in fact grant rebates and credits for additional supplies but 
intentionally failed to disclose them. Specifically, TKS' undisclosed 
rebate to the DMN is documented in fax correspondence between TKS and 
its U.S. affiliate included as Exhibits 23 and 26 in Volume III of 
Goss' June 9, 2005, submission; DMN's invoice to TKS for the $1 
million, included as Exhibit 27 in Volume III of Goss' June 9, 2005, 
submission; and TKS' application for a telegraphic transfer of funds, 
included as Attachment 30 of the Department's May 5, 2005, Memorandum 
to the File (May Memo) (also in Exhibit 28 of Volume III of Goss' June 
9, 2005, submission). This payment is also discussed in two memoranda 
and a deposition by the DMN's production manager (Exhibit 31 in Volume 
III of Goss' June 9, 2005, submission, and Attachments 34 and 41, 
respectively, of the May Memo), and in a deposition by a former TKS 
official now at the DMN (Attachment 40 of the May Memo). In the same 
May Memo depositions, the DMN officials also attest to a total of $1.2 
million of credits granted to the DMN in consideration of the LNPP sale 
to the DMN. See, also, Goss' discussion of the payment and credits at 
Volume I, page 5, and Volume II, pages 5-6 of its June 9, 2005, 
submission, as well as Goss Int'l at pages 8-9.
    Because TKS did not provide accurate and complete information in 
its questionnaire responses, we preliminarily determine that the 
application of facts available is appropriate, pursuant to section 
776(a)(2) of the Act. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that ``if 
an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that 
has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide 
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information 
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and 
(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this 
title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be 
verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority 
shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in 
reaching the applicable determination under this title.''
    Once we determine that the use of facts available is warranted, 
section 776(b) of the Act permits the Department to determine whether 
the application of an adverse inference is also warranted. In making 
this additional determination, the Department may find that ``[a 
respondent] has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its 
ability to comply with a request for information.'' See section 776(b) 
of the Act.
    As discussed above, a comparison of the Goss Int'l documents and 
the record from the 1997-1998 review indicates that TKS failed to 
disclose its rebate and credit arrangements associated with its sale to 
the DMN, TKS' sole sale in the 1997-1998 review, and falsely reported 
to the Department that no such rebate or credits existed. The 
Department is reexamining TKS' margin in the 1997-1998 review in the 
context of this changed circumstances review pursuant to its inherent 
authority to protect the integrity of its proceedings. As a general 
matter, an agency may act to protect the integrity of its proceedings. 
See Elkem Metals Co. v. United States, 193 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (CIT 2002) 
(Elkem Metals); Alberta Gas Chemicals, Ltd. v. Celanese Corp., 650 F.2d 
9, 12-13 (2d Cir. 1981); Touche Ross & Co. v. SEC, 609 F.2d 570, 582 
(D.C. Cir. 1979). In

[[Page 54022]]

Elkem Metals, the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmed the 
International Trade Commission's (ITC's) reopening of an affirmative 
injury determination on ferrosilicon from various countries because of 
fraudulent activity, even though the ITC did not have explicit 
statutory authority to do so. In the reopened investigation, the ITC 
reversed its final affirmative determination of injury after foreign 
producers petitioned to reopen the investigation; the foreign producers 
had based their petition on a ``recently disclosed price-fixing 
conspiracy among some domestic manufacturers, and its consequent 
distortion of the price data presented to the ITC during its original 
material injury investigations.'' See Elkem Metals, 193 F. Supp.2d at 
1317. This instant proceeding is similar to Elkem Metals because a 
Federal court has determined that TKS concealed rebates and other 
relevant information affecting the sales price information reported to 
the Department in the context of the antidumping duty review, and 
because, upon the Department's own examination of the documents, as 
discussed above, the Department determines that TKS failed to disclose 
requested information and provided false statements to the Department 
about the DMN sale. There was only one sale examined in the 1997-1998 
review; therefore, false and incomplete information about the DMN sale 
discredits the findings of the entire review.
    Because TKS provided false and incomplete information in the 
context of its only sale in the 1997-1998 administrative review, we 
find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 
the use of total facts available is appropriate. See, e.g., Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission 
of Review, in Part, 69 FR 7193 (February 13, 2004) and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat Decision Memo) (aff'd Shanghai Taoen Int'l Trading Co. v. United 
States, No. 04-00125, Slip. Op. 05-22 (CIT Feb. 17, 2005)); Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794 (August 30, 2002); Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 32757, 32761, at Comment 8 
(June 17, 1997) (Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware).
    Moreover, TKS' failure to provide accurate and complete information 
about the DMN sale, along with its false statement in its questionnaire 
response concerning rebates and other concessions to price, demonstrate 
that TKS did not respond truthfully and completely to the Department's 
requests for information. Accordingly, TKS did not act to the best of 
its ability as required by section 776(b) of the Act. Consequently, we 
have made an adverse inference in determining a dumping margin for TKS. 
See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware, 62 FR at 32761; Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat Decision Memo at Comment 2.
    Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as 
adverse facts available (AFA) information derived from the petition, 
the final determination from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other 
information placed on the record. As AFA, we have preliminarily 
assigned to TKS the rate of 59.67 percent, which is the rate calculated 
for MHI in the LTFV investigation, as amended and recalculated pursuant 
to a remand redetermination (see Notice of Court Decision: Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, From Japan, 65 FR 31879 (May 19, 2000) (Redetermination on 
Remand aff'd Mitsubishi Heavy Indus., Ltd. v. United States, 275 F.3d 
1056 (Fed. Cir. 2001))).\1\ The rate of 59.67 percent is the highest 
rate calculated for any respondent in the LTFV investigation or the 
three subsequent administrative reviews. The Department's purpose when 
selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of 
information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as 
to effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce 
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate 
information in a timely manner.'' See Final Determination of Sales at 
Less than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from 
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). We find the application 
of a rate of 59.67 percent to TKS to be sufficiently adverse in this 
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a discussion of the AFA rate selection, see Memorandum 
to the File entitled ``AFA Rate Selection,'' dated September 6, 2005 
(AFA Rate Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies 
on secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts 
otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate 
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its 
disposal. We have interpreted ``corroborate'' to mean that we will, to 
the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the 
information used. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Foundry Coke from the People's 
Republic of China, 68 FR 57869, 57874 (October 7, 2003) (unchanged in 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Foundry Coke 
from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 4108 (January 28, 2004)), 
citing Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 
Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 
Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 
(November 6, 1996), and Persulfates from the People's Republic of 
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 
42628, 42628-29 (August 14, 2001).
    Unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling 
expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department 
can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. In an administrative review, if the 
Department chooses as 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 because it was 
calculated in accordance with the statute.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, 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 may not 
be relevant, the Department will attempt to find a more appropriate 
basis for facts available. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico, 61 FR 6812, 6814 
(February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the highest 
margin as best information available because the margin was based on 
another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
unusually high margin).
    We preliminarily determine that the calculated margin selected as 
AFA has probative value because it is based on

[[Page 54023]]

verified data from a respondent in the LTFV investigation. Although 
this margin is the highest in the range of calculated margins, there is 
no basis to conclude that it is aberrational or inappropriate as 
applied to TKS. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that this rate 
is an appropriate rate to be applied in this review to exports of the 
subject merchandise produced by TKS during the 1997-1998 administrative 
review period as facts otherwise available.

Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Because of the information developed in this changed circumstances 
review, the Department preliminarily finds that the final results of 
TKS' 1997-1998 review should be revised from zero to an AFA rate of 
59.67 percent.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222, the antidumping order was revoked with 
respect to TKS prior to the conclusion of the sunset review. This 
revocation was based in part on TKS receiving zero margins for the 
1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-2000 administrative review periods. 
However, this changed circumstances review preliminarily finds that the 
1997-1998 review was flawed, based on TKS' withholding of information 
as described above, and consequently, an AFA rate should be assigned to 
TKS for the 1997-1998 review period. Thus, TKS did not have a zero 
margin in three consecutive administrative reviews. As a result of that 
preliminary finding, TKS no longer qualifies for revocation. Because of 
the information developed in this changed circumstances review, the 
Department preliminarily determines that the revocation of the order 
with respect to TKS should be rescinded.
    Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department sunset 
the order in 2002 because no domestic producer stated an interest in 
continuing the order. At that time, Goss had ceased production in the 
United States and was unable to participate as a domestic producer. 
However, Goss has provided information in this changed circumstances 
review that its cessation of production at that time was, in large 
measure, due to TKS' improper actions. Goss contends that ``but for'' 
TKS' actions it would have been able to continue production at the time 
of the sunset review and thus participate in the sunset review which, 
in turn, may have rendered different results.
    We preliminarily find that the changed circumstances review record 
supports the fact that TKS' actions negatively impacted Goss' position 
as a domestic producer. Goss' economic consultant prepared a study 
identifying up to tens of millions of dollars that Goss may have lost 
directly or indirectly due to TKS' unfair trade activity. See Volume V, 
pages 36-43 and Attachments 13 through 20 of Goss' June 9, 2005, 
submission (resubmitted on June 29, 2005). Consequently, Goss likely 
suffered lost sales and profit as a result of TKS' improper actions, 
which, in turn, affected Goss' ability to continue production at the 
time of the sunset review.
    Although we are unable to measure the precise quantitative effect 
of TKS' unfair trade practices on Goss' operations, the record supports 
the conclusion that they negatively impacted Goss' position as a 
domestic producer. While the Department cannot determine with certitude 
what would have happened, but for TKS' actions, the evidence of TKS' 
unfair trade practices on the record of this review warrants adverse 
assumptions. Given TKS' actions in this proceeding, as revealed by the 
Goss Int'l case and the information developed in this review, it is 
reasonable to make the adverse assumption with respect to TKS that, but 
for TKS' actions, Goss would have been able to continue production at 
the time of the sunset review and thus to participate in the sunset 
review.
    Therefore, based on the evidence on the record in this changed 
circumstances review and the reasonable adverse assumptions that we 
have determined are appropriate, we also preliminarily determine that, 
if we continue to find in our final results that an AFA rate should be 
applied to TKS for the 1997-1998 administrative review and that TKS 
should not have been revoked from the order, a new sunset review should 
be initiated following completion of this changed circumstances review. 
If, in the context of a sunset review, the Department finds a 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Department 
will present this determination to the ITC. See Asahi Chemical Industry 
Co., Ltd., Plaintiff v. United States, 727 F. Supp. 625 (CIT 1989).

Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results, including comments on how a new sunset review should be 
conducted, if one were to be initiated upon the completion of this 
changed circumstances review. Case briefs may be submitted by 
interested parties not later than 30 days after the date of publication 
of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the 
case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the deadline 
for submission of case briefs. Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. If requested, a 
hearing will be held no later than five days after the deadline for the 
submission of rebuttal briefs, or the first workday thereafter. Persons 
interested in attending the hearing should contact the Department for 
the date and time of the hearing.
    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).
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties and 
rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in the respective case 
briefs, may be submitted in accordance with a schedule to be 
determined. 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 publish the final results of this changed 
circumstances review, which will include the results of its analysis of 
issues raised in any case or rebuttal briefs.
    This notice of preliminary results of changed circumstances review 
is in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.216(d).

    Dated: September 6, 2005.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E5-5000 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P