[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8261]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-421-806]
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Color Negative Photographic Paper and Chemical Components Thereof From
the Netherlands
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Beck, Office of Antidumping
Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482-3464.
Preliminary Determination
We preliminarily determine that color negative photographic paper
and chemical components thereof (CNPP) from the Netherlands are being,
or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value,
as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). The estimated margin is shown in the ``Suspension of
Liquidation'' section of this notice.
Case History
Since the initiation of this investigation on September 20, 1993,
(58 FR 50331, September 27, 1993), the following events have occurred.
On October 15, 1993, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)
issued an affirmative preliminary determination.
On November 19, 1993, the Department presented an antidumping duty
questionnaire to Fuji Photo Film B.V. (respondent).
Respondent submitted its responses to the Department's sales and
cost questionnaires in December 1993 and January 1994. The Department
issued deficiency sales and cost questionnaires in February 1994.
Respondent submitted its responses to these deficiency questionnaires
in February and March 1994.
On December 14, 1993, respondent submitted a statement in support
of the Department postponing the preliminary determination in this
investigation. On December 23, 1993, Eastman Kodak Company (petitioner)
requested that the Department postpone the preliminary determination
until March 29, 1994, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.15(c) (1993). The
Department granted this request on January 6, 1994 (59 FR 1927, January
13, 1994).
On March 2, 1994, petitioner submitted an allegation that critical
circumstances exist with respect to imports of CNPP from the
Netherlands. On March 4, 1994, the Department sent respondent a
critical circumstances questionnaire. On March 18, 1994, respondent
submitted its response to the questionnaire.
On March 8, 1994, respondent requested that, in accordance with 19
CFR 353.20(b), in the event of an affirmative preliminary
determination, the Department postpone the final determination.
Scope of Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, color negative photographic
paper is all sensitized, unexposed silver-halide color negative
photographic paper, whether in master rolls, smaller rolls or sheets.
Chemical components include sensitized (whether chemically or
spectrally) and unsensitized emulsions, couplers, and coupler
dispersions used in making color negative photographic paper.
Unsensitized silver-halide emulsions consist of silver-halide
microcrystals dispersed in a gelatin and water matrix after preparation
and washing to remove soluble salts. Unsensitized emulsions are
naturally sensitive to blue and ultraviolet light, but cannot
efficiently convert light to form a color image without further
processing. Sensitized emulsions have been treated to increase their
sensitivity across the entire spectrum and/or treated by the addition
of spectral sensitizing dyes to make the emulsions selectively
sensitive to specific wavelengths of light. A coupler is a colorless,
water-insoluble chemical capable of reacting with a silver-halide
development product to form a dye. A coupler dispersion consists of a
coupler dispersed in a water-gel solution, and may contain organic
solvents, chemicals to stabilize the coupler and other substances.
Specifically excluded from this investigation are all paper and
chemical products not used in the silver halide process which are used
in other imaging technologies. Products outside the scope include toner
and developer chemicals used in electrostatic or indirect imaging
processes (e.g., xerography), products used in laser printing, and
instant photography products.
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are paper that is
designed exclusively for use in graphic arts proofing equipment and
does not exceed 160 microns in thickness, and emulsions classified
under subheading 3707.10.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS) that are used in the manufacture of monochrome
graphic arts film or paper that are not used in the production of color
negative photographic paper.
The color negative photographic paper subject to this investigation
is currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 3703.10.3030 and
3703.20.3030. Emulsions are currently classifiable under HTSUS
subheadings 3707.10.0000 and 3707.90.3000. Couplers and coupler
dispersions are currently classifiable under HTSUS subheadings
3707.90.3000, 3707.90.6000, 2933.19.3000, 2933.90.2500 and
2934.90.2000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this investigation is dispositive.
To avoid suspension of liquidation of non-subject chemicals, those
items entered under the HTSUS subheadings listed above, which are not
for use in the color negative photographic paper production process,
must be accompanied by an importer's declaration to the Customs Service
to that effect.
In order to be excluded from the suspension of liquidation ordered
in this notice, all sensitized (whether chemically or spectrally) and
unsensitized emulsions, couplers, and coupler dispersions entered into
the United States must be accompanied by an importer's declaration to
the Customs Service to the effect that they are not for use in the
color negative photographic paper production process and will not be
used in the color negative photographic paper production process.
On February 18, 1994, petitioner and respondent submitted comments
on whether the chemical components are in the same class or kind of
merchandise as color negative photographic paper. Petitioner argues
that the subject merchandise constitutes one class or kind of
merchandise, whereas respondent argues that the merchandise included in
the scope of investigation constitutes two classes or kinds of
merchandise. We determined that color negative photographic paper and
the chemical components constitute one class or kind of merchandise
(see March 24, 1994, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to
Barbara R. Stafford). We based our determination on the criteria set
forth in Diversified Products v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 883 (1983)
and Kyowa Gas Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. v. United States, 582 F.
Supp. 887 (1984).
Period of Investigation (POI)
We initiated this investigation using a six-month POI from March 1,
1993, through August 31, 1993. On October 13, 1993, petitioner
requested that the Department expand the POI. We expanded the POI in
order to capture U.S. shipments made pursuant to an October 1, 1991,
contract with the single-largest unrelated purchaser (see December 30,
1993, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R.
Stafford). We instructed respondent to submit foreign sales information
of the subject merchandise for the month of November 1991 to be the
basis for the foreign market value (FMV) comparison to the U.S.
shipments made pursuant to the long-term contract (see January 17,
1994, decision memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R.
Stafford).
Such or Similar Comparisons
In this investigation, we have examined sales of color negative
photographic paper; we have not examined sales of chemical components
because respondent did not make such sales during the POI (see October
22, 1993, memorandum from James Maeder to David Binder). We have
determined for purposes of the preliminary determination that the color
negative photographic paper covered by this investigation comprise a
single category of ``such or similar'' merchandise. Respondent reported
products that are identical according to the Department's matching
criteria but have minor cost differences based on the emulsions
contained in each product. For purposes of the preliminary
determination, we are treating these products as identical and are
making no adjustments for differences in merchandise between the
products as claimed by respondent in accordance with 19 CFR 353.57.
This is because respondent failed to provide a narrative description
for its adjustments for differences in merchandise that explains the
exact nature, source, and size of each difference. We have instructed
the respondent to submit a thorough description of its adjustments for
differences in merchandise so that these adjustments can be considered
for use in the final determination (see February 23, 1994, decision
memorandum from Richard W. Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
Fair Value Comparisons/Multinational Corporation Provision
In its petition, Kodak alleged that all of the criteria for
invoking the multinational corporation (MNC) provision have been met.
To determine whether sales of CNPP from the Netherlands to the United
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the United States
price (USP) to the appropriate FMV as required by the MNC provision.
The MNC provision, contained in section 773(d) of the Act, requires
the Department to determine if the following three criteria are met:
(1) Merchandise exported to the United States is being produced in
facilities which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a
person, firm or corporation which also owns or controls, directly or
indirectly, other facilities for the production of such or similar
merchandise which are located in another country or countries;
(2) The sales of such or similar merchandise by the company
concerned in the home market of the exporting country are nonexistent
or inadequate as a basis for comparison with the sales of the
merchandise to the United States; and,
(3) The FMV of such or similar merchandise produced in one or more
of the facilities outside the country of exportation is higher than the
FMV of such or similar merchandise produced in the facilities located
in the country of exportation. (In this comparison, we must adjust the
FMVs for any differences between the costs of production in the two
countries (including taxes, labor, materials and overhead), pursuant to
section 773(d) of the Act).
If the above criteria are met, then the MNC provision instructs the
Department to compare USP to the FMV of such or similar merchandise
produced in one or more facilities outside the country of exportation.
Regarding the first criterion, Fuji Photo Film B.V. is wholly owned
by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. in Japan. Further, Fuji Photo Film Co.,
Ltd. produces the subject merchandise in Japan. Thus, Fuji Photo Film
B.V. meets the first criterion.
Regarding the second criterion, we compared the volume of home
market sales of color negative photographic paper to the volume of
third country sales of color negative photographic paper, in accordance
with section 773(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.48(a), in order to
determine whether there were sufficient sales of color negative
photographic paper in the home market to compare to sales of color
negative photographic paper to the United States. We found that the
Netherlands home market was not viable for comparison to sales to the
United States (see January 11, 1994, memorandum from Richard W.
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
We determined, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.49, that Germany is the most
appropriate third country market for purposes of the comparison of FMVs
under the MNC provision because:
(1) Germany is the largest single third country market;
(2) The type of merchandise sold in Germany is more similar to
Dutch exports of color negative photographic paper to the U.S. than the
type of merchandise sold elsewhere; and
(3) The channels of distribution in Germany are most similar to
those for color negative photographic paper from the Netherlands sold
in the United States (see December 30, 1993, memorandum from Richard W.
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
Regarding the third criterion, we compared German and Japanese
FMVs. To calculate the FMVs, we first compared the German and Japanese
prices to U.S. price (see the ``Foreign Market Value'' section of this
notice for a complete description of how we calculated the German and
Japanese FMVs).
Once we had calculated the two FMVs, we calculated a comparison
adjustment for each product-specific FMV to determine whether any of
the observed differences in value between the FMV of products produced
in Japan and the FMV of products produced in the Netherlands and sold
in Germany were attributable to differences in costs of production. The
comparison adjustment included the costs of materials, labor, fixed and
variable overhead, general and administrative expense and interest
incurred in producing the product.
For the German adjustment, the Department relied on the submitted
cost information except in the following instances where the costs were
not appropriately quantified or valued:
(1) We excluded income from investment grants as this generally
relates to income tax credits which are not considered a production
cost;
(2) We did not include foreign exchange gains or losses resulting
from sales transactions as they are not related to production costs;
and,
(3) We reallocated CNPP specific research and development costs to
reflect the benefits experienced by facilities in Japan and the
Netherlands.
For the Japanese adjustment, the Department relied on the submitted
cost information except in the following instances where the costs were
not appropriately quantified or valued:
(1) We excluded losses from the disposal of fixed assets as these
costs did not appear to relate to the subject merchandise;
(2) We did not include foreign exchange gains or losses resulting
from sales transactions as they are not related to production costs;
(3) We reallocated CNPP specific research and development costs to
reflect the benefits experienced by facilities in Japan and the
Netherlands; and,
(4) We excluded the enterprise tax in our calculation of general
and administrative expenses because this tax is based on income and is
not considered a production cost.
In calculating the FMVs, Japanese prices included a consumption tax
and German prices did not. Thus, we adjusted the Japanese FMV by
deducting the consumption tax.
Next, we deducted the German comparison adjustment from the German
FMV and the Japanese comparison adjustment from the Japanese FMV. We
multiplied the resulting amount for each product by the quantity of
U.S. merchandise to which the product was compared in order to provide
for an equitable comparison. Finally, we aggregated the values. From
these aggregated values, we determined that the Japanese value was
higher than the German value. Thus, the third criterion for invoking
the MNC provision has been met.
Because all of the above criteria for the MNC provision have been
met, we are required to base the FMV for the Netherlands on sales
prices by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. in Japan (see the March 10, 1994,
memorandum from the team to Barbara R. Stafford for a further
discussion of the Department's MNC methodology).
United States Price
We based USP on exporter's sales price (ESP), in accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to
the first unrelated purchaser after importation into the United States.
Respondent did not provide a revised sales listing for the foreign
extended POI sales because of ambiguous language in our deficiency
questionnaire regarding the due dates. Therefore, we have not
considered the extended U.S. POI sale for purposes of the preliminary
determination, but will do so for purposes of the final determination.
Additionally, we determined that it is not necessary to examine U.S.
further-manufactured sales from the Netherlands for purposes of this
investigation (see January 17, 1994, memorandum from Richard W.
Moreland to Barbara R. Stafford).
On March 21, 1994, respondent submitted clarifications regarding
its response to section C of the Department's questionnaire regarding
U.S. sales. Respondent requested that the Department recalculate a
certain inland insurance expense and a certain indirect selling
expense. This submission was received too late to be used for purposes
of the preliminary determination; however, we will consider this
submission in our final determination.
Based on information submitted by respondent, we reclassified a
certain movement expense as revenue, and added it to the U.S. gross
unit price.
We made deductions, where appropriate, for discounts and rebates
and for the following movement charges: foreign brokerage, foreign
inland freight, marine insurance, ocean freight, U.S. brokerage and
handling charges, U.S. duty, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. inland
insurance. We added an amount for duty drawback.
We deducted commissions and direct selling expenses which include
advertising, credit expenses, and a combination of promotional expenses
which constitute other direct selling expenses. We recalculated U.S.
imputed credit using the reported dates of shipment and payment because
the amounts reported by the respondent did not consistently reflect the
method described in the questionnaire response. We have adjusted USP
for additional product preparation performed by certain parties after
exportation.
We also deducted indirect selling expenses which include those
indirect selling expenses that Fuji-USA (respondent's principal related
U.S. entity) incurred in its general sales activities, those indirect
selling expenses that Fuji-Hunt (a U.S. entity related to respondent)
incurred in its sales and marketing activities, foreign and U.S. pre-
sale warehousing expenses, inventory carrying costs, premiums for
product liability insurance, and indirect selling expenses incurred in
Japan.
For purposes of the preliminary determination, we are accepting
respondent's treatment of Fuji-USA's commissions paid to an unrelated
party and Fuji-Hunt's commissions as direct selling expenses, and
commissions paid to Fuji-USA's employees as indirect selling expenses.
We treated all advertising costs as direct selling expenses because
respondent reported that all advertising is directed at their
customers' customers.
We made an adjustment to USP for the consumption tax paid on the
comparison sales in Japan. However, in Federal-Mogul Corporation and
The Torrington Company v. United States, Slip Op. 93-194 CIT (October
7, 1993), the Court of International Trade prohibited us from applying
a purely tax neutral margin calculation methodology. Accordingly, we
made our tax methodology conform to the instructions of the CIT, and
adjusted U.S. price for tax by multiplying the Japanese tax rate by the
price of the U.S. merchandise at the point in the chain of commerce of
the U.S. merchandise that is analogous to the point in the Japanese
chain of commerce at which the Japanese government applies the
consumption tax.
In this investigation, the tax levied on the subject merchandise in
Japan is three percent. We calculated the appropriate tax adjustment to
be three percent of the price of the U.S. merchandise net of discounts
reflected on the invoice at the time of sale (which, in this case, is
the point in the chain of commerce of the U.S. merchandise, that is
analogous to the point in the Japanese market chain of commerce at
which the Japanese government applies the consumption tax). We then
added this amount to the U.S. price. We also calculated the amount of
the tax adjustment that was due solely to the inclusion of expenses in
the original tax base that are later deducted from the price to
calculate USP (i.e., three percent of the sum of any adjustments,
expenses and charges that were deducted from the price of the U.S.
merchandise). We reduced this tax adjustment to take into account the
adjustment to U.S. price for duty drawback (i.e., three percent of the
duty drawback amount that was excluded from the tax base). We deducted
this amount after all other additions and deductions had been made. By
making this additional tax adjustment, we avoid a distortion that would
cause the creation of a dumping margin even when pre-tax dumping is
zero.
Foreign Market Value
As described in the ``Fair Value Comparisons/Multinational
Corporation Provision'' section of this notice, we had to calculate
FMVs in both Germany and Japan in order to make our MNC comparison. We
calculated FMVs based on German and Japanese home market sales prices,
pursuant to section 773(d) of the Act. Respondent did not provide a
revised sales listing for the foreign extended POI sales because of
ambiguous language in our deficiency questionnaire regarding the due
dates. Therefore, we have not considered the extended U.S. POI sale for
purposes of the preliminary determination, but will do so for purposes
of the final determination.
For German sales, we classified respondent's discounts and rebates
to reflect the Department's standard definitions of discounts and
rebates (i.e., a discount is a price concession before invoicing,
whereas a rebate is a price concession after invoicing). We determined
that certain discounts were, in fact, rebates, and were treated
accordingly. Additionally, we recalculated credit expenses in Germany
using the reported dates of shipment and payment.
For Japanese sales, we excluded certain sales of control paper,
hobby paper, crystal paper, and softech paper from our analysis because
these sales were made outside of the ordinary course of trade due to
the nature of the products and were made in insignificant quantities.
We omitted error entries and inventory adjustment entries because these
entries are not sales of CNPP, nor did respondent directly tie these
entries to the pertinent sales in the CNPP database. We also dropped
cancelling transactions as respondent stated that it could not identify
the original transaction to which a specific cancellation entry
applies. Finally, we excluded certain low-priced sales of CNPP in Japan
because, despite a specific request to do so, respondent did not
adequately explain the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, these
low-priced sales.
Additionally, for Japanese sales, we made no adjustment for those
rebate programs where respondent did not identify in the database which
customer actually received the rebate. Additionally, we disallowed any
rebate not established before the filing of the petition. For one
expense claimed as a rebate, we determined that the expense, although
viewed as a direct selling expense to CNPP, was overstated through a
misallocation of the costs; consequently, we did not make any
adjustment for this expense, but will consider doing so subsequent to
verification and further explanation. With regard to one promotional
program reported as a direct selling expense, we did not make an
adjustment to FMV because respondent failed to report the expense
properly. Because respondent failed to report shipment dates, we were
unable to recalculate credit expenses; thus, we made no adjustments for
credit expenses. We treated all advertising costs as direct selling
expenses because respondent reported that all advertising is directed
towards the customers' customers.
For Japan sales, we recalculated indirect selling expenses incurred
in the Japanese home market by reallocating certain rebates and
promotional programs as indirect selling expenses rather than as
charges or direct selling expenses, respectively, because we found that
respondent has misclassified these expenses. We classified product
liability expenses as indirect selling expenses because respondent's
explanations demonstrate that its liability policy is general in nature
and not tied to specific sales. We also reclassified technical expenses
as indirect selling expenses because respondent's documentation
illustrates that these expenses relate to general long-term assistance,
rather than customer- or sales-specific expenses.
For both German and Japanese sales, we used the Department's
current related party test, which considers differences in the level of
trade, to determine whether sales to related customers were made on an
arm's-length basis. For purposes of the preliminary determination, we
considered a party as related to respondent in Japan whenever there was
evidence of substantial ownership in, or contractual agreements
constituting business control over, the party. See Appendix II to the
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina (58 FR 37077, July 9,
1993) for more information on the Department's related party test. For
both German and Japanese sales, we did not include in our analysis any
sales to related customers that we determined were not at arm's length.
We calculated German and Japanese FMVs based on delivered prices,
inclusive of packing. We made deductions for discounts and rebates,
where applicable. For purposes of the preliminary determination, we
have treated all movement expenses as direct selling expenses.
Therefore, in accordance with the decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-
NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, Slip Op.
93-1239 (Fed. Cir., January 4, 1994), we made a circumstance-of-sale
adjustment for foreign movement expenses.
We further deducted from the Japanese FMV the appropriate direct
selling expenses, including advertising expenses and warranty expenses.
We deducted credit expenses from the German FMV.
We deducted German and Japanese indirect selling expenses,
including inventory carrying costs, technical services (Japan only),
warehousing (Japan only), and product liability premiums (Japan only)
from FMV, capped by the sum of U.S. indirect selling expenses and the
U.S. commission amount.
We deducted German and Japanese packing costs and added U.S.
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act.
We included in FMV the amount of the consumption tax collected in
the Japanese home market. We also calculated the amount of the tax that
was due solely to the inclusion of expenses in the original tax base
that are later deducted from home market price to calculate FMV (i.e.,
three percent of the sum of any adjustments, expenses, charges, and
offsets that were deducted from the home market price). We deducted
this amount after all other additions and deductions were made. By
making this additional tax adjustment, we avoid a distortion that would
cause the creation of a dumping margin even when pre-tax dumping is
zero. In addition, we calculated a re-adjustment of the amount of tax
to take into account the amount of packing expenses added to FMV (i.e.,
three percent of the packing expenses).
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal
Reserve Bank.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we will verify the
information used in making our final determination.
Critical Circumstances
On March 2, 1994, petitioner alleged that ``critical
circumstances'' exist with respect to imports of color negative
photographic paper and chemical components thereof from the
Netherlands. We will preliminary determine that critical circumstances
exist in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act if we determine
that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that:
(A)(i) There is a history of dumping in the United States or
elsewhere of the class or kind of merchandise which is the subject of
the investigation, or
(ii) The person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was
imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation at less than its
fair value, and
(B) There have been massive imports of the class or kind of
merchandise which is the subject of the investigation over a relatively
short period.
Regarding requisite (A)(i) above, we normally consider whether
there has been an antidumping order in the United States or elsewhere
on the subject merchandise in determining whether there is a history of
dumping. Regarding requisite (A)(ii) above, we normally consider
margins of 25 percent or more for purchase price comparisons and 15
percent or more for exporter's sales price comparisons as sufficient to
impute knowledge of dumping. Because the preliminary estimated dumping
margin for all exporters of color negative photographic paper and
chemical components thereof from the Netherlands is in excess of 15
percent, we can impute knowledge of dumping under section
733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Under 19 CFR 353.16(f), we normally consider the following factors
in determining whether imports have been massive over a short period of
time:
(1) The volume and value of the imports;
(2) Seasonal trends (if applicable); and
(3) The share of domestic consumption accounted for by imports.
To determine whether or not there have been massive imports of
CNPP, we compared export volumes for the six months subsequent to the
filing of the petition to the six months prior to the filing of the
petition. We found that exports of the subject merchandise from the
Netherlands during the period subsequent to receipt of the petition had
increased by an amount sufficient to categorize the imports as massive.
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do
exist.
Suspension of Liquidation
In accordance with section 733(d)(1) of the Act, and with 19 CFR
353.16(c), we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation
of all entries of CNPP from the Netherlands, as defined in the ``Scope
of Investigation'' section of this notice, that are entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is
90 days prior to the date of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or posting of a
bond equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margin, as shown below.
The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further
notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuji Photo Film B.V........................................ 321.23
All Others................................................. 321.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination.
If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine
whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material
injury to, a U.S. industry before the later of 120 days after the date
of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final
determination.
Postponement of Final Determination
On March 8, 1994, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b), the sole
respondent requested that, in the event of an affirmative
determination, the Department postpone the final determination. We find
no compelling reason to deny the request. Accordingly, we are
postponing the date of the final determination until not later than 135
days after the date of publication of this notice.
Public Comment
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written
comments in at least ten copies may be submitted by any interested
party to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no later
than June 30, 1994, and rebuttal briefs no later than July 8, 1994. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), we will hold a public hearing, if
requested, to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on
arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing
will be held on July 15, 1994, at 10 a.m. at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, room 3708, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm the time, date, and place
of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, room B-099, within ten days of the
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Requests should
contain:
(1) The party's name, address, telephone number;
(2) The number of participants; and
(3) A list of the issues to be discussed. In accordance with 19 CFR
353.38(b), oral presentations will be limited to the issues raised in
the briefs.
This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(f)) and 19 CFR 353.15(a)(4).
Dated: March 29, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-8261 Filed 4-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
