[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25165-25172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12045]
[[Page 25165]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-028]
Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Recission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Roller Chain, Other Than
Bicycle, From Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine that sales of roller chain, other
than bicycle, from Japan have been made below normal value (NV). We
also preliminarily determine that one manufacturer/exporter under
review had no sales or shipments of the subject merchandise during the
POR. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Katt, Jack K. Dulberger, or
Ron Trentham, AD/CVD Enforcement Group II, Office Four, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone: (202) 482-5253, (202) 482-4793, or (202) 482-0498,
respectively.
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments to the Act by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the Department's interim regulations
published in the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department published the antidumping
finding on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan in the Federal
Register on April 12, 1973 (38 FR 9926) (Roller Chain). On April 3,
1996, the Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping finding on roller chain,
other than bicycle, from Japan covering the period April 1, 1995,
through March 31, 1996 (POR) in the Federal Register (60 FR 17052). In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(2), on April 25, 1996, the petitioner,
American Chain Association (ACA), requested that the Department conduct
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order for the
following six manufacturers/exporters of roller chain in Japan: (1)
Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd. (Daido); (2) Enuma Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Enuma);
(3) Izumi Chain Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Izumi); (4) Hitachi Metals
Techno Ltd. (Hitachi); (5) Pulton Chain Co., Ltd. (Pulton); and (6)
R.K. Excel Co. Ltd. (RK) (collectively, the respondents). On April 30,
1996, Izumi, Daido, and Enuma also requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of their shipments of roller chain to
the United States during the POR. In their April 30, 1996 letters,
Daido and Enuma also requested partial revocation of the finding as to
themselves, pursuant to section 353.25(b) of the Department's
regulations. On May 24, 1996, the Department published a notice of
initiation of administrative review (61 FR 26158) for the period April
1, 1995, through March 31, 1996. The Department is now conducting this
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend
the deadline for completion of a preliminary determination if it
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the
statutory time limit. On August 8, 1996, the Department extended the
time limit for the preliminary and final results of this case. See
Notice of Extension of Time Limits of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 61 FR 68237 (December 27, 1996).
Verification
In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
further manufacturing costs for merchandise produced by Enuma during
March 1997. The results of this verification are outlined in the public
version of the verification report on file in room B-099 of the main
Commerce building. (See April 2, 1997, Memorandum to the File from Jack
K. Dulberger and Justin Jee.)
Scope of Review
The merchandise subject to this review is 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 transmissions
and/or conveyance. This chain consists of a series of alternately-
assembled roller links and pin links in which the pins articulate
inside from 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 conveyor 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.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
Period of Review
The POR is April 1, 1995, through March 31, 1996.
Non-Shipper
Hitachi claimed in an August 5, 1996 letter to the Department that
it did not have shipments during the POR, which we confirmed with the
United States Customs Service. Since Hitachi made no shipments of the
subject merchandise during the POR, and is not an exporter or producer
as defined in section 771(28) of Act, we are rescinding this review
with respect to Hitachi. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties;
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Sec. 351.213(d)(3), (61 FR 7308, 7365)
(February 27, 1996). Consequently, Hitachi's cash deposit rate will
continue to be that established in the most recently completed final
results. (For further discussion of Hitachi, see the Memorandum to the
File from Jack Dulberger, dated April 1, 1997, on file in room B-099 of
the main Commerce building.)
Facts Available
Pulton
During the current POR, the Department requested that Pulton report
its sales of all roller chain models sold in the home market. Despite
our request, Pulton did not report its sales of all home market models,
but rather chose to report only its home market sales of models which,
according to Pulton, were the most similar models to the models sold in
the United States. In addition, Pulton failed to provide the requested
difference in merchandise
[[Page 25166]]
(DIFMER) information for all home market models. Therefore, the
Department was unable to determine whether other home market models
were sufficiently similar for comparison purposes.
On February 5, 1997, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Pulton, requesting additional information on the home
market models and the DIFMER calculations. In the same questionnaire,
the Department also requested constructed value (CV) information
pertaining to the models sold in the U.S. market. In both instances,
the Department advised Pulton that failing to provide the requested
information may result in the application of facts available (FA).
In response to the February 5, 1997, supplemental questionnaire,
Pulton stated that the DIFMER data for the home market sales ``is not
currently available;'' and regarding the CV information Pulton stated
that ``no response is required.'' See Pulton's February 10, 1997
Supplemental Questionnaire Response. On February 24, 1997, the
Department provided Pulton with an additional opportunity to submit a
complete response to the Department's February 5, 1997, supplemental
questionnaire. In the supplemental letter to Pulton, the Department
informed Pulton that should it fail to provide the requested
information, the Department may apply adverse FA in its determination.
On February 24, 1997, Pulton responded to the Department's additional
request for information by stating that it would not provide additional
information because of the ``burden and expenses involved'' including
``a substantial amount of time and research * * * plus legal
expenses.'' Pulton did not propose any alternatives to the Department.
See the February 24, 1997 Letter from Pulton to the Department.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or provides information that cannot be verified, the
Department shall use FA in reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(d) provides certain conditions that must be satisfied
before the Department may, subject to subsection (e), disregard all or
part of the information submitted by a respondent. First, this section
states that if the Department determines that a response to a request
for information does not comply with the request, it shall promptly
inform the person submitting the response of the nature of the
deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide that person
with an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the
time limits established for the completion of the review. Section
782(d) continues that if the party submits further information in
response to the deficiency and the Department finds the response is
still deficient or submitted beyond the applicable time limits, the
Department may disregard all or part of the original and subsequent
responses.
As noted above, on several occasions the Department notified Pulton
of the nature of its deficiencies and provided Pulton with the
opportunity to submit the requested DIFMER information for those home
market models which were not reported on the home market sales listing.
On each occasion Pulton failed to provide the requested data, declined
to provide an explanation for the deficient nature of its responses,
and failed to provide the Department with any suggested alternatives
for the requested data.
Because the DIFMER information for these models was not provided by
Pulton and there were other unreported home market models with physical
characteristics identical to the two models reported by Pulton, the
Department does not have complete information on sales of identical
merchandise and is unable to determine whether any of Pulton's
unreported home market models passed the Department's 20 percent DIFMER
test and should be included in the calculation of NV for the
preliminary results. In addition, no CV information was supplied.
Therefore, the Department is compelled to use total FA with regard to
Pulton.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be
used against a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with requests for information. See also
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) at 870. Pulton's failure to
report the DIFMER data requested by the Department, despite several
warnings by the Department regarding the consequences of such an
action, demonstrates that Pulton has, to date, failed to cooperate to
the best of its ability in this review. Thus, in selecting among the FA
for Pulton, an adverse inference is warranted. Section 776(b) states
that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived
from: (1) The petition; (2) the final determination in the LTFV
investigation; (3) any previous review under section 751 of the Act or
investigation under section 753 of the Act; or (4) any other
information placed on the record. See also SAA at 829-831.
Therefore, we are applying as total adverse FA the rate of 43.29
percent. This rate represents the highest calculated rate for Pulton
from any prior segment of this proceeding (i.e., the margin calculated
for Pulton in the first administrative review (46 FR 44488, September
4, 1981)).
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies
on secondary information in using FA, it must, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at its disposal. The SAA provides that ``corroborate'' means
simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary
information to be used has probative value (see SAA at 870). However,
unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling
expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping
margins. The only source for margins is administrative determinations
and reviews. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department
relies on a calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the
proceeding, as FA, the Department can normally be satisfied that the
information has probative value and that it has complied with the
corroboration requirements of section 776(i) of the Act. See
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof From France, et. al., 62 FR 2083, 2087 (January 15,1997)(AFBs).
Furthermore, there is no reliable evidence on the record indicating
that this selected margin is not appropriate as adverse FA. See Id., at
2088. The Department has, in an earlier segment of this proceeding,
applied a rate of 43.29 percent as ``best information available
(BIA).'' See Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review: Roller
Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR 5590, 5591 (December 4,
1996) (1993-1994 POR). (For further discussion of FA for Pulton, see
the Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Jeffrey P. Bialos dated April 15,
1997, on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce building).
Enuma
Enuma reported that it owned part of a Japanese trading company,
Daido Tsusho. Daido Tsusho, in turn, owns a U.S. sales subsidiary,
Daido Corporation. In the U.S. market, Enuma makes all U.S. sales
through Daido Tsusho, which then resells the subject merchandise either
directly to unaffiliated U.S. customers, or to Daido
[[Page 25167]]
Corporation. Daido Corporation then resells the subject merchandise to
unaffiliated U.S. customers.
Despite owning less than five percent of Daido Tsusho during this
review segment, Enuma characterized its relationship with Daido Tsusho
and Daido Corporation as ``affiliated'' throughout its questionnaire
response. Furthermore, Enuma reported its direct sales made through
Daido Tsusho as export price (EP) sales and its sales made through
Daido Corporation as constructed export price (CEP) sales. In addition,
in its claim for a CEP offset, Enuma characterized the companies as
being affiliated.
We also note that in prior administrative reviews, Enuma had a
greater equity share in Daido Tsusho and, as a result, the Department
considered these parties to be ``related'' or ``affiliated''. During
the 1992-1993 review period, Enuma's equity share dropped to its
current level. Given that Enuma now owns less than five percent of
Daido Tsusho, the two companies are no longer considered affiliated
under section 771(33)(E) of the Act. Moreover, there is no other
information on the record of this review at this time indicating
affiliation, pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, between these two
entities. Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary results, we
find that Enuma is not affiliated with either Daido Tsusho or Daido
Corporation. Since we do not consider these entities to be affiliated,
we believe that the appropriate U.S. transactions to be reviewed are
those between Enuma and Daido Tsusho.
Section 776(a) of the Act authorizes the Department, subject to
section 782(d), to use FA when necessary information is not available
on the record. Given that Enuma has not reported its sales to Daido
Tsusho in the U.S. sales listing, we cannot calculate United States
price with respect to Enuma. Therefore, we are compelled to use FA.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that adverse inferences may be
used against a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with requests for information. As noted
above, Enuma, in its questionnaire response, in various places,
expressly characterized Enuma and Daido Tsusho as affiliated when in
fact they do not appear to be affiliated. Also, Enuma did not report
the proper U.S. sales data. However, we note that the Department did
not specifically request that Enuma provide this data in its
supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, for purposes of these
preliminary results, we do not believe an adverse inference is
warranted and are applying non-adverse FA under Section 776 of the Act.
We are applying, as non-adverse FA, the simple average of the
calculated dumping rates for Daido, Izumi, and RK (i.e., those
respondents in this segment of the proceeding whose margins are not
based on adverse FA).
For purposes of the final results, we will request that Enuma
report all U.S. sales made to Daido Tsusho, and provide any additional
explanations and/or clarifications regarding the nature of the
affiliation and any forms of control between the two companies. The
Department is mindful of the need for accuracy in representations made
in questionnaire responses which the Department must rely upon in
making its decisions. Inaccurate responses undermine the integrity of
the review process. We therefore will take the accuracy of Enuma's
overall responses into account in our final results.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondents, covered by the description in the
``Scope of the Review'' section, above, and sold in the home market
during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no
sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S.
sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like
product, based on the following three product characteristics listed in
order of importance: (1) The type of roller chain (e.g., industrial
roller chain, motorcycle chain, or leaf chain); (2) the number of
strands (e.g., single, double, triple, multiple, etc.); and (3) the
finish (e.g., carbon steel, nickel plated, stainless steel, etc.).
In past segments of this proceeding, the Department has used the
model match databases submitted by the respondents to identify
identical and similar merchandise in the home market. For this review,
however, we have determined it appropriate to make the analysis in this
proceeding consistent with the Department's current practice of
defining identical and similar merchandise based only on the product
characteristics outlined in the antidumping questionnaire. In this
administrative review, the questionnaire instructed the respondents to
provide data regarding the three product characteristics specified
above for all reported United States and home market sales. In
addition, the questionnaire informed the respondents that they could
report additional product characteristics if they believed there were
other product characteristics that the Department should consider in
performing product comparisons. If a respondent chose to report
additional product characteristics, the questionnaire instructed the
respondent to describe in the narrative response why it believed the
Department should consider the additional characteristics in defining
identical and similar merchandise.
Although no additional product characteristics were specifically
identified by Daido, Enuma, and Izumi in their questionnaire responses,
it was apparent from the model match databases submitted by these
respondents that these companies had considered product characteristics
beyond those specified in the Department's questionnaire to define
unique products. However, based on information on the record in this
proceeding, we are unable to determine what additional characteristics
these respondents relied upon in identifying unique products. Regarding
RK, the company identified additional product characteristics in its
questionnaire response, including pitch length, roller width, roller
diameter, pin diameter, pin length, link height, link thickness,
average strength and average weight. However, RK did not explain why it
believed the Department should consider these characteristics in
identifying identical and similar merchandise for product comparison
purposes. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we have
redefined the product control numbers reported by the respondents using
only the three product characteristics outlined in the Department's
questionnaire to define a unique product.
Interested parties are requested to comment on these matching
criteria and to provide comments on whether the Department should
consider any additional criteria within its matching analysis. All
comments must be submitted no later than 14 days from the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. If a party believes
that there are product characteristics other than the three enumerated
in the Department's questionnaire which should be considered in
performing product comparisons, the party should: (1) Specify the
characteristic(s); (2) explain why they believe the characteristic is
essential in defining identical and similar merchandise, including the
effect of the product characteristics on both the cost of manufacturing
and the selling price of
[[Page 25168]]
the merchandise; and (3) if the party is a respondent in this
administrative review, the respondent should explain how the product
characteristic(s) has been captured in the respondent's reported
control numbers.
In this administrative review, Daido did not submit DIFMER
information for its United States and home market products because the
company claimed that there were contemporaneous home market sales of
identical merchandise for comparison to every U.S. sale. However, in
performing product comparisons using the methodology described above,
we were unable to identify an identical product for every U.S. sale, as
claimed by Daido.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or provides information which cannot be verified, the
Department shall use FA in reaching the applicable determination.
Because the Department is unable to compare every U.S. sale to
identical sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market and
Daido failed to provide DIFMER information in its questionnaire
response, the Department is compelled to use FA with regard to the
DIFMER. Accordingly, for those U.S. sales where contemporaneous home
market sales of identical merchandise do not exist, we are applying, as
non-adverse FA, the weighted-average price-to-price margin calculated
for those U.S. sales where we were able to make identical comparisons.
For purposes of the final results, we will request that Daido provide
the requisite DIFMER information.
Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determine NV for sales at the same
level of trade as the U.S. sales (either EP or CEP). When there are no
sales at the same level of trade, we compare U.S. sales to home market
(or, if appropriate, third-country) sales at a different level of
trade.
For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for the level-of-
trade analysis is the sale (or constructed sale) from the exporter to
the importer. While the starting price for CEP is that of a subsequent
resale to an unaffiliated buyer, the construction of the CEP results in
a price that would have been charged if the importer had not been
affiliated. We calculate the CEP by removing from the first resale to
an independent U.S. customer the expenses under section 772(d) of the
Act and the profit associated with these expenses. These expenses
represent activities undertaken by the affiliated importer. Because the
expenses deducted under section 772(d) represent selling activities in
the United States, the deduction of these expenses normally yields a
different level of trade for the CEP than for the later resale (which
we use for the starting price). Movement charges, duties and taxes
deducted under section 772(c) do not represent activities of the
affiliated importer, and we do not remove them to obtain the CEP level
of trade. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in
the home market. When NV is based on constructed value, the level of
trade is that of the sales from which we derive SG&A and profit.
To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of
trade than U.S. sales, we examine whether the home market sales are at
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales. The
marketing process in both markets begins with goods being sold by the
producer and extends to the sale to the final user, regardless of
whether the final user is an individual consumer or an industrial user.
The chain of distribution between the producer and the final user may
have many or few links, and each respondent's sales occur somewhere
along this chain. In the United States, the respondent's sales are
generally to an importer, whether independent or affiliated. We review
and compare the distribution systems in the home market and U.S. export
markets, including selling functions, class of customer, and the extent
and level of selling expenses for each claimed level of trade. Customer
categories such as distributor, original equipment manufacturer (OEM),
or wholesaler are commonly used by respondents to describe levels of
trade, but, without substantiation, they are insufficient to establish
that a claimed level of trade is valid. An analysis of the chain of
distribution and of the selling functions substantiates or invalidates
the claimed levels of trade. If the claimed levels are different, the
selling functions performed in selling to each level should also be
different. Conversely, if levels of trade are nominally the same, the
selling functions performed should also be the same. Different levels
of trade necessarily involve differences in selling functions, but
differences in selling functions, even substantial ones, are not alone
sufficient to establish a difference in the levels of trade. A
different level of trade is characterized by purchasers at different
stages in the chain of distribution and sellers performing
qualitatively or quantitatively different functions in selling to them.
When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different
level of trade, we make a level-of-trade adjustment if the difference
in levels of trade affects price comparability. We determine any effect
on price comparability by examining sales at different levels of trade
in a single market, the home market. Any price effect must be
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home
market sales used for comparison and sales at the equivalent level of
trade of the export transaction. To quantify the price differences, we
calculate the difference in the average of the net prices of the same
models sold at different levels of trade. We use the average difference
in net prices to adjust NV when NV is based on a level of trade
different from that of the export sale. If there is a pattern of no
consistent price differences, the difference in levels of trade does
not have a price effect and, therefore, no adjustment is necessary.
CEP Offset. The statute also provides for an adjustment to NV when
NV is based on a level of trade different from that of the CEP if the
NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP and if we are
unable to determine whether the difference in levels of trade between
CEP and NV affects the comparability of their prices. This latter
situation can occur where there is no home market level of trade
equivalent to the U.S. sales level or where there is an equivalent home
market level but the data are insufficient to support a conclusion on
price effect. This adjustment, the CEP offset, is identified in section
773(a)(7)(B) and is the lower of the following:
The indirect selling expenses on the home market sale, or
The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting
price in calculating CEP.
The CEP offset is not automatic each time we use CEP. The CEP
offset is made only when the level of trade of the home market sale is
more advanced than the level of trade of the U.S. (CEP) sale and there
is not an appropriate basis for determining whether there is an effect
on price comparability.
In this administrative review, Daido claimed that there were
different LOTs between the home market and U.S. CEP sales and that a
CEP offset was warranted. As noted above, Daido owns a Japanese trading
company, Daido Tsusho, which, in turn, owns a U.S. sales subsidiary,
Daido Corporation.
[[Page 25169]]
Daido, Daido Tsusho, and Daido Corporation are therefore considered
affiliated parties within the meaning of section 771(33) of the Act.
In implementing the above referenced principles in this review, we
first looked for different stages of marketing between CEP and NV. We
found that there was one stage of marketing in the home market--direct
sales of roller chain from Daido to unaffiliated customers. We then
examined the selling functions performed by Daido with respect to both
markets. In analyzing whether separate LOTs existed, we found that no
single selling activity was sufficient to warrant finding a separate
LOT (see Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for public comments,
61 FR 7307, 7348 (February 27, 1996)). We found that Daido's selling
functions in the home market included sales administration, billing,
maintaining inventory, and arranging freight services. In the U.S.
market, we also found one stage of marketing--direct sales of roller
chain between Daido/Daido Tsusho and Daido Corporation. We found that
the selling functions included in the CEP after making deductions under
section 772(d) of the Act included sales administration, maintaining
inventory, arranging freight services, and preparing export
documentation.
A different level of trade is characterized by purchasers at
different places in the chain of distribution and sellers performing
qualitatively or quantitatively different functions in selling to them.
See AFBs at 2105. Based on the findings noted above concerning Daido's
U.S. and home market sales, we conclude for these preliminary results
that the U.S. and home market sales were not made at different points
in the channel of distribution and that the selling functions performed
for Daido's CEP sales were not sufficiently different from those
performed for home market sales. We find, therefore, that Daido's sales
in the home market and in the United States market are at the same
level of trade. (For further discussion of this issue, see the LOT
Memorandum from Holly Kuga to Jeffrey P. Bialos dated April 30, 1997,
on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce building.)
With respect to RK, in its questionnaire responses, it did not
state that there were differences in its selling activities by customer
categories within each market or between markets. Therefore, in the
absence of information in R.K.'s questionnaire responses, which might
lead us to reach a different conclusion, we have determined for
purposes of these preliminary results that all sales in the home market
and the U.S. market were made at the same level of trade and no
adjustment pursuant to section 773 (a) (7) (A) of the Act is warranted.
Sales Comparisons
To determine whether sales of roller chain by the respondents to
the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP
or CEP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price and Constructed
Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In
accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EP and
CEP of individual transactions to the weighted-average NV of
contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product.
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For Izumi and certain sales made by Daido, we calculated EP, in
accordance with subsections 772(a) of the Act because the subject
merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States prior to importation and CEP methodology was not
otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. Regarding RK, the
company made sales to Nissho Iwai Corporation (NIC), an affiliated
trading company. NIC, in turn, sold the merchandise to Alloy Tool
Steel, Inc. (ATSI), its affiliated selling agent in the United States.
Where these sales to the unaffiliated customer took place prior to
importation into the United States, we preliminarily determine U.S.
price to be based on EP for the following reasons: (1) The merchandise
in question was shipped directly from the manufacturer to the
unaffiliated buyer, without being introduced into the physical
inventory of the affiliated selling agent; (2) this was the customary
commercial channel for sale of this merchandise between the parties
involved, and; (3) the affiliated selling agent in the United States
acted only as a processor of documentation and a communication link
with the unaffiliated buyer. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Beryllium Metal and Beryllium Alloys from the
Republic of Kazakstan, 62 FR 2648, 2649 (January 17, 1997); see also
April 30, 1997, Memorandum from the Team to Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Regarding the Treatment of U.S. Sales of Roller Chain Manufactured by
RK.) It is the Department's practice in instances where all three
criteria are met to regard the routine selling functions of the
exporter as ``merely having been relocated geographically from the
country of exportation to the United States,'' and to, therefore, find
the sales to be EP sales. 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).
NIC is affiliated with both ATSI and RK pursuant to section 771(33)
of the Act. However, based on the information on the record, we
preliminarily conclude that RK and ATSI are not affiliated parties
under section 771(33) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these
preliminary results, we are treating RK's sales to ATSI as EP sales.
We calculated CEP for certain sales made by Daido and RK, in
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, where sales to the first
unaffiliated purchaser took place after importation into the United
States.
For Daido, RK, and Izumi we calculated EP and CEP based on packed
prices to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we made deductions,
where appropriate, for inland freight from the plant to port, inland
insurance, brokerage and handling, international freight, marine
insurance, and U.S. Customs duties.
For CEP sales made by Daido and RK, we made deductions, where
appropriate, for direct selling expenses including advertising, credit
and commissions paid to unaffiliated distributors and agents in
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act. In addition, we deducted
those indirect selling expenses which were associated with economic
activity occurring in the United States. These included inventory
carrying costs incurred in the United States and the indirect selling
expenses of the affiliated U.S. distributors. For RK, we also deducted
certain indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market which
were associated with economic activity occurring in the United States.
We made adjustments for CEP profit in accordance with sections
772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. Because neither Daido or RK were required
to report cost information, the Department was unable to use such data
submitted to determine the total expenses (i.e., cost of manufacturing
and selling, general and administrative expenses) and total actual
profit for purposes of computing CEP profit. Section 772(f) of the Act
provides three alternative methods for determining total expenses and
total actual profit. These alternatives form a hierarchy where the use
of any one of the methods depends on the data available to the
Department from the case record. We were unable to apply the first
alternative (section 772(f)(2)(C)(i), the actual expenses incurred in
the United States and the
[[Page 25170]]
home market with respect to the merchandise under investigation)
because the Department is not conducting a sales below cost
investigation and, therefore, the Department did not request COP
information for the home market products and CV information for all
U.S. products. In addition, we were unable to apply the second
alternative (section 772(f)(2)(C)(ii), the expenses incurred with
respect to the narrowest category of merchandise sold in the United
States and the exporting country which includes the subject
merchandise) because the financial statements of RK and Daido are not
specific to the production costs and sales information of merchandise
sold only in the United States and home market. Therefore, we
calculated CEP profit using alternative three (section
772(f)(2)(C)(iii), the expenses incurred with respect to the narrowest
category of merchandise sold in all countries which includes the
subject merchandise). Under this alternative, we calculated the profit
percentage for RK and Daido based on the respondent's own financial
statements for fiscal year 1995/1996 for merchandise produced and sold
by the respondent in all countries.
We made additional company-specific adjustments as follows:
A. RK
For CEP sales, we deducted the cost of further manufacturing in the
United States in accordance with Section 772(d) (2) of the Act.
B. Daido
For EP sales, we added the amount of interest revenue collected by
Daido in instances where the U.S. customer made a late payment. We also
made deductions for quantity discounts.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared each respondent's volume of home market sales of foreign
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since the aggregate
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater
than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, and there was no evidence indicating that a particular
market situation in the exporting country did not permit a proper
comparison, we determined that the home market was viable for the
respondents. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of
the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like products
were first sold for consumption in the exporting country. We calculated
NV as described in the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-
Constructed Value'' sections of this notice, below.
Regarding Izumi, the company identified a reseller in the home
market to which it was affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the
Act. However, Izumi failed to report the downstream sales of this
affiliated customer to the first unaffiliated customer. Instead, the
company reported its own sales to the affiliated customer. Izumi
claimed that it was unable to obtain the downstream sales information
of its affiliated customer because it does not hold any stock ownership
in the customer and the customer is a much larger entity than Izumi.
Because Izumi's sales to this affiliated customer accounted for a
significant percentage of its total sales of the foreign like product
during the POR, in our supplemental questionnaire we requested that
Izumi either: 1) Report the downstream sales of this affiliated
customer; or 2) demonstrate that its sales to this affiliated customer
were at arm's length prices.
In its supplemental questionnaire response, Izumi failed to report
the downstream sales and failed to show that its sales to the
affiliated customer were at arm's length. In addition, because the
total quantity of sales to unaffiliated parties during the POR was so
small and certain products were only sold to affiliated customers, we
found that there are an insufficient number of unaffiliated sales to
provide a meaningful comparison to affiliated party sales. Therefore,
we concluded that our standard arm's length test would not produce
reliable results. See Final Results of Antidumping Administrative
Review: Roller Chain, other than Bicycle, from Japan, 61 FR 64329
(December 4, 1996).
Insofar as we were unable to test whether Izumi's sales to this
affiliated customer were made at arm's-length prices, we have,
therefore, assumed for these preliminary results that all sales between
Izumi and the affiliated customer were not made at arm's length prices
and have excluded these sales from the calculation of NV. See, e.g.,
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Pasta from Italy, 61 FR 1350 (January 19, 1996) (excluding sales that
were not at arm's length from the calculation of NV); see also
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products, 55 FR 42230 (October
18, 1990) (stating that affiliated party sales can only be used if the
Department is satisfied that the price is comparable to the price at
which the exporter/producer sold the foreign like product to an
unaffiliated person).
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner or requested format,
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute, or
provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use
FA in reaching the applicable determination. Despite numerous requests
by the Department, Izumi failed to report the downstream sales of its
affiliated customer in its home market sales listing. In addition, as
noted above, the Department is unable to conduct an arm's length price
analysis to determine whether Izumi's sales to this affiliated customer
were indeed at arm's length prices. Therefore, the Department has no
reliable basis for determining whether these sales can be used to
calculate NV. Since Izumi's home market sales do not provide a reliable
basis on which to calculate NV, the Department is compelled to use FA.
Given that Izumi attempted to obtain the downstream sales
information of its affiliated customer and Izumi has otherwise complied
with all of the Department's requests for information, we find that
Izumi has acted to the best of its ability to comply with the
Department's information requests in this review and that an adverse
inference is not warranted pursuant to Section 776(b) of the Act. See
also the SAA at 870. However, we will continue to examine the
relationship between Izumi and its affiliated customer in future
reviews.
As noted above, the quantity of sales to unaffiliated parties in
the home market during the POR is insignificant. Because we did not
find this quantity to be sufficient to validate the arm's length nature
of the affiliated party sales and we believe that a significant
potential for price manipulation exists with regard to these sales, we
find that these sales do not provide a reliable basis on which to
calculate NV for these preliminary results. Therefore, we have
disregarded all home market sales and have calculated NV based on CV in
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. For discussion of the CV
calculation, see the ``Price-to-CV'' section of this notice, below.
Price to Price Comparisons
With respect to RK, where there were contemporaneous sales of the
[[Page 25171]]
comparison product, we based NV on home market prices. As noted in the
``Product Comparisons'' section above for Daido, we based NV on home
market prices only in instances where contemporaneous sales of an
identical home market product existed. In instances where
contemporaneous home market sales of identical home market merchandise
did not exist, we disregarded the similar home market sales and applied
the weighted-average price-to-price margin calculated for those U.S.
sales where we were able to make identical comparisons to the quantity
of U.S. sales. (For a further discussion of this issue, see the
``Product Comparisons'' section of this notice, above).
We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for
inland freight, insurance, and other transportation expenses. In
addition, we made circumstance of sale adjustments for direct expenses,
including credit, where appropriate, in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We deducted home market packing costs and
added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6) (A) and
(B) of the Act.
Where commissions were paid on EP sales for RK and Daido, we
deducted home market indirect selling expenses up to the amount of the
U.S. commission from NV and added the amount of the U.S. commission.
Where commissions were paid on CEP sales made by RK, we deducted from
NV the lesser of either: (1) the weighted-average amount of commission
and indirect selling expenses paid on a U.S. sale for a particular
product; or (2) the weighted-average amount of indirect selling
expenses paid on the home market sales for a particular product.
A. Calculation of CV
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV
for Izumi based on the sum of the COM of the product sold in the United
States, plus amounts for home market selling, general and
administrative expenses (SGA), profit, and U.S. packing costs. Since
Izumi had no sales of the foreign like product in the ordinary course
of trade during the POR, we calculated home market selling expenses and
profit using alternative methodologies in accordance with section
773(e)(2)(B). We calculated Izumi's selling expenses as described in
section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii). That is, we used the weighted-average selling
expenses experienced by Daido and RK, which are exporters or producers
subject to review, in connection with the production and sale of the
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in
the home market. We calculated profit as described in section
773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, which specifies that profit can be
calculated using any other reasonable alternative. For these
preliminary results, we used the actual amount of profit realized by
another publicly-held non-investigated producer of roller chain in
Japan. (For a further discussion, see the Izumi Memorandum from Holly
Kuga to Jeffrey Bialos dated April 30, 1997, on file in room B-099 of
the main Commerce building.)
Price-to-CV Comparisons
For Izumi, where we compared EP to CV, we deducted from CV the
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the
product-specific U.S. direct selling expenses, in accordance with
sections 773(a)(8) and 773(a)(6)(iii) of the Act.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, 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 of New York.
Section 773A (a) of the Act directs the Department to use a daily
exchange rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars,
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' In accordance with
the Department's practice, we have determined that a fluctuation exists
when the daily exchange rate differs from a benchmark by 2.25 percent.
The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past
40 business days. When we determine that a fluctuation exists, we
substitute the benchmark for the daily rate in accordance with
established practice.
Intent Not To Revoke
Daido and Enuma submitted a request in accordance with 19 CFR
353.25 (b) to revoke the order with respect to its sales of roller
chain in the United States. In the final results of our most recently
completed administrative review of this order, Daido and Enuma had
margins that were greater than de minimis. See Roller Chain at 64327.
Therefore, Daido and Enuma do not qualify for revocation.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period April
1, 1995, through March 31, 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average margin
Manufacturer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daido..................................... 4.98.
Enuma..................................... 10.13 (facts available).
Izumi..................................... 14.13.
Pulton.................................... 43.29 (adverse facts
available).
R.K. Excel................................ 11.29.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five (5)
days of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party
may request a hearing within 10 days of the date of publication. Any
hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the publication of
this notice, or the first workday thereafter.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested
to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a
brief summary of the argument. All case briefs must be submitted within
30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs,
which are limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not
later than 37 days after the date of publication. (As noted above, all
comments on the model matching criteria must be submitted on or before
May 22, 1997. Rebuttal comments may be filed no later than May 29,
1997.) The Department will issue the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such written comments, within 120 days from the
publication of these preliminary results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated
above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. The final
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this review for all shipments
of roller chain from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of the final, as provided
by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
reviewed companies will be those rates specified in the final results,
(2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers
[[Page 25172]]
or exporters not covered in these reviews but covered in the original
LTFV investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue
to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or
final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a
company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in
these reviews, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is
covered, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the
manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of these reviews,
or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the
manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any previous reviews, the
cash deposit rate will be 15.92 percent, the ``all-others'' rate based
on the first review conducted by the Department in which a ``new
shipper'' rate was established in the final results of antidumping
administrative review (48 FR 51801, November 14, 1983). These
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice 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 occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: April 30, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-12045 Filed 5-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
