[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5898-5899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2352]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-038]
Bicycle Speedometers From Japan; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from a domestic producer, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping finding on bicycle speedometers from Japan.
The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this merchandise sold in
the United States for the period November 1, 1992 through October 31,
1993. We preliminarily find that a margin of 3.62 percent exists for
the manufacturer/exporter, Cat Eye, Co., Ltd.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference
between the United States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6312/3814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 22, 1972, the Department of Treasury published in the
Federal Register (37 FR 24826) an antidumping finding on bicycle
speedometers from Japan. On November 15, 1993, a domestic manufacturer,
Avocet, Inc. (Avocet), in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review. Avocet is an
interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). We published a notice of initiation
of the antidumping duty administrative review on December 17, 1993 (58
FR 1993). The Department is now conducting this
[[Page 5899]] administrative review in accordance with section 751 of
the Tariff Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of bicycle
speedometers. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 9029.20.20, 9029.40.80,
and 9029.90.40. HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and
Customs purposes. Our written description remains dispositive.
The review covers the shipments of Cat Eye Co., Ltd. (Cat Eye), a
manufacturer/exporter of bicycle speedometers during the period
November 1, 1992 through October 31, 1993.
United States Price
The Department used purchase price, as defined in section 772 of
the Tariff Act, to calculate USP. Purchase price was based on the
f.o.b., packed price from the producer to an unrelated Japanese trading
company for sale to the United States under the name ``Specialized'',
or to the first unrelated purchaser in the United States. We made
adjustments where applicable, for foreign inland freight, and brokerage
and handling charges. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value
For its FMV calculation, the Department used home market price, as
defined in section 773 of the Tariff Act, since sufficient quantities
of such or similar merchandise were sold in the home market to provide
a basis for comparison. Home market price was based on the packed,
delivered price to unrelated purchasers. We made adjustments, where
applicable, for post-sale inland freight, quantity rebates, and
differences in credit, direct advertising, and packing costs. In
addition, we made a difference-in-merchandise adjustment, where
appropriate, based on differences in the variable costs of manufacture.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
In our calculations we utilized annual weight-averaged FMVs for
purposes of comparison as in antifriction bearings from Japan. See
Antifriction Bearings from Japan, et al.; Final Results of
Administrative Review, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993).
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily
determine that the margin for Cat Eye is 3.62 percent for the period
November 1, 1992 through October 31, 1993.
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after
the date of publication, or on the first workday thereafter. Case
briefs and/or written comments may be submitted not later than 30 days
after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs or rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be filed not
later than 37 days after the date of publication. The Department will
publish the final results of the administrative review, including the
results of its analysis of any comments submitted or made during a
hearing.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will
issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly to
Customs.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of the final
results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1)
of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company
will be that established in the final results of this administrative
review; (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 this review, a previous review, or the
original less-than-fair-value (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
or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the ``new
shipper'' rate established in the first administrative review, as
discussed below.
On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in Floral
Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul
Corporation and the Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-
83, decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a
company, it can only be changed through an administrative review. The
Department has determined that in order to implement these decisions,
it is appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from
the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for correction for
clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed
by antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping
findings, unless we are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from
the Treasury LTFV investigation, the Department has determined that it
is appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the
first final results of the administrative review published by the
Department (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical error or
as a result of litigation) as the ``all others'' rate for the purposes
of establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative
reviews.
Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping finding, and
we are unable to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury
LTFV investigation, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of the
review will be 26.44 percent, the ``new shipper'' rate established in
the first final results of administrative review published by the
Department (47 FR 28978, July 2, 1982).
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1675(a)), and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: January 16, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-2352 Filed 1-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
