[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62387-62389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29728]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-028]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the American Chain Association,
the petitioner in this proceeding, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping
finding on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan. The review
covers four manufacturers/exporters of this merchandise to the United
States during the period of April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993.
We gave interested parties the opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we
have revised the results from those presented in our preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Thompson or Donna Berg, Office of
Antidumping Investigations, Import
[[Page 62388]]
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3003 or (202) 482-0114, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 23, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of its 1992-1993 administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from
Japan (60 FR 43769). The four manufacturers/exporters reviewed are
Izumi Chain Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi), R.K. Excel (Excel),
Hitachi Metals Techno Ltd. (Hitachi), and Pulton Chain Co. Ltd.
(Pulton). Pulton submitted comments on August 30, 1995. On September
18, 1995, the petitioner submitted its case brief. Excel submitted
rebuttal comments on September 25, 1995. The Department has now
conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Statute and to the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of 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
transmission and/or conveyance. Such chain consists of a series of
alternately-assembled roller links and pin links in which the pins
articulate inside 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 conveyer 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) subheadings 7315.11.00 through 7619.90.00. HTSUS item numbers
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the United States price (USP) to the foreign market
value (FMV), as specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign
Market Value'' sections of this notice.
United States Price
We calculated USP according to the methodology described in our
preliminary results, except for the adjustment of value-added taxes
(VAT), as described below.
In light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v.
United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, the Department has changed its
treatment of home market consumption taxes. Where merchandise exported
to the United States is exempt from the consumption tax, the Department
will add to the U.S. price the absolute amount of such taxes charged on
the comparison sales in the home market. This is the same methodology
that the Department adopted following the decision of the Federal
Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and
which was suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its decision. The
Court of International Trade (CIT) overturned this methodology in
Federal Mogul v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and the
Department acquiesced in the CIT's decision. The Department then
followed the CIT's preferred methodology, which was to calculate the
tax to be added to U.S. price by multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by
the foreign market tax rate; the Department made adjustments to this
amount so that the tax adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' pre-tax
dumping assessment.
The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed
that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held
that the statute did not preclude Commerce from using the ``Zenith
footnote 4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping assessments
(i.e., assessments that are unaffected by the existence or amount of
home market consumption taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit
recognized that certain international agreements of the United States,
in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the
Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral
dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT
with instructions to direct Commerce to determine which tax methodology
it will employ.
The Department has determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4''
methodology should be used. First, as the Department has explained in
numerous administrative determinations and court filings over the past
decade, and as the Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of
the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required
that dumping assessments be tax-neutral. This requirement continues
under the new Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Second, the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act (URAA) explicitly amended the antidumping law to remove consumption
taxes from the home market price and to eliminate the addition of taxes
to U.S. price, so that no consumption tax is included in the price in
either market. The Statement of Administrative Action (p. 159)
explicitly states that this change was intended to result in tax
neutrality.
While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different
from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA
law required that the tax be added to United States price rather than
subtracted from home market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty
assessments. In sum, the Department has elected to treat consumption
taxes in a manner consistent with its longstanding policy of tax-
neutrality and with the GATT.
Foreign Market Value
With the exception noted above for VAT, we calculated FMV according
to the methodology described in our preliminary results.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a).
All currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Interested Party Comments
Comment 1: Consumption Tax Adjustment
The petitioner argues that the Department erred with respect to its
consumption tax (VAT) calculations for Excel's home market sales.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that the Department incorrectly
excluded U.S. commissions from its calculation of the hypothetical VAT
amount applicable to U.S. selling expenses. Insofar as the
[[Page 62389]]
VAT on expenses is deducted from FMV, the petitioner argues that the
alleged error has the effect of lowering FMV and thereby improperly
decreasing Excel's margin.
Excel contends that it would be incorrect to include commissions in
the calculation of U.S. expenses because commissions were not included
in the calculation of the VAT amount that was added to U.S. price. If
the Department were to include commissions in the equation for U.S.
expenses, Excel argues that the Department should also include
commissions in the calculation of the VAT amount that is added to U.S.
price.
DOC Position
In accordance with the CAFC decision (see the ``United States
Price'' section of this notice), the Department has changed its VAT
calculation methodology. Therefore, the comments made by the petitioner
and Excel are moot.
Comment 2: Pulton's Dumping Margin
Pulton states that the Department's preliminary results correctly
indicated that Pulton reported no U.S. sales during this review period.
However, Pulton contends that the Department incorrectly cited the
dumping margin from the most recent review when Pulton had U.S. sales.
Instead of the rate of 0.01 percent published by the Department, Pulton
contends the rate should be 0.00 percent (see 58 FR 52264, 52267
(October 7, 1993)).
DOC Position
We agree with Pulton and have corrected this inadvertent error for
these final results.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine
that the following weighted-average margins exist for the April 1, 1992
through March 31, 1993 period:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi...................................................... \1\12.68
Izumi........................................................ 0.52
Pulton....................................................... \1\0.00
Excel........................................................ 0.10
All Others................................................... 15.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No sales during the period. Rate is from the last period in which
there were sales.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of these final results of administrative review, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit
rates for Pulton and Excel will be zero because the margins for these
firms are zero or de minimus. The cash deposit rates for Izumi and
Hitachi will be 0.52 and 12.68 percent, respectively; (2) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this
review but covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the rate published in the most recent final results or determination
for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific
rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, earlier
review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the
merchandise in the final results of this review, earlier reviews, or
the LTFV investigation, whichever is the most recent; (4) if neither
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any
previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will
be the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first review conducted
by the Department in which a ``new shipper'' rate was established, as
discussed below.
On May 25, 1993, the CIT in Floral Trade Council v. United States,
822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and Federal-Mogul Corporation and the
Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993),
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 ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of 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 administrative review published by the
Department (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors
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 this
review would normally be the ``new shipper'' rate established in the
first notice of final results of administrative review published by the
Department (46 FR 44488, September 4, 1981). However, a ``new shipper''
rate was not established in that notice. Therefore, the ``all others''
rate of 15.92 percent comes from Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from
Japan, Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding,
48 FR 51801 (November 14, 1983), the first review conducted by the
Department in which a ``new shipper'' rate was established.
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 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 the only 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 terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
This 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
353.22.
Dated: November 29, 1995
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-29728 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
