[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15954]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 29, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-580-008]
Color Television Receivers From the Republic of Korea;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department
of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative reviews of
the antidumping duty order on color television receivers (CTVs) from
the Republic of Korea. The reviews cover exports of this merchandise to
the United States by the manufacturer Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd.
(Daewoo). Based on our review of these exports during the period April
1, 1988 through March 31, 1989, we preliminarily find a margin of 4.00
percent. Daewoo had no shipments during the April 1, 1989 through March
31, 1990, administrative review period. We invite interested parties to
comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne D'Alauro or Richard Herring,
Office of Countervailing Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-2786.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 31, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (54 FR
13211) of the antidumping duty order on color television receivers from
the Republic of Korea for the period April 1, 1988 through March 1,
1989 (sixth review). The Independent Radionic Workers of America,
International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers of America, and the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, the
petitioners in this proceeding, and Zenith Electronics Corporation, a
domestic interested party, requested an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order with respect to Daewoo for this period. For the
subsequent (seventh) review period, April 1, 1989 through March 31,
1990, the opportunity notice was published on April 10, 1990 (55 FR
13302), Zenith Electronics Corporation requested the seventh period
review of Daewoo.
On May 24, 1989 and June 1, 1990, the Department published a notice
of initiation for the sixth and seventh administrative reviews,
respectively. The Department is now conducting these administrative
reviews with respect to Daewoo in accordance with section 751 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
On May 1, 1990, we received a letter from counsel for Daewoo
stating that the company had no shipments during the period April 1,
1989 through March 31, 1990 and, therefore, would not be submitting a
questionnaire response. We received no further comments.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review include CTVs, complete and
incomplete, from the Republic of Korea. The order covers all CTVs
regardless of tariff classification. During the period of review, the
subject merchandise was classified under item numbers 684.9246,
684.9248, 684.9250, 684.9252, 684.9253, 684.9255, 684.9256, 684.9258,
684.9262, 684.9263, 684.9270, 684.9275, 684.9655, 684.9656, 684.9658,
684.9660, 684.9663, 684.9864, 684.9866, 687.3512, 687.3513, 687.3514,
687.3516, 687.3518, and 687.3520, of the Tariff Schedules of the United
States Annotated (TSUSA). This merchandise is currently classifiable
under item numbers 8528.10.80, 8529.90.15, 8529.90.20, and 8540.11.00
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS and TSUSA
item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our
written description of the scope remains dispositive.
United States Price
For a portion of Daewoo's sales, we based United States Price (USP)
on purchase price (PP) in accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff
Act. We based USP on PP because CTVs were sold to unrelated purchasers
in the United States prior to importation into the United States and
because exporter's sales price (ESP) methodology was not indicated by
other circumstances. For the remainder of Daewoo's sales, we based USP
and ESP because those sales were made to unrelated parties after
importation into the United States, pursuant to section 772(c) of the
Tariff Act.
We calculated PP based on packed, C&F, CIF, or F.O.B. Korea prices
to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, where
applicable, for foreign inland freight, Electronic Industries
Association of Korea (EIAK) fees, ocean freight (which includes Korean
customs clearance fees), marine insurance, U.S. and Korean brokerage
and handling charges, wharfage, U.S. duties, U.S. customs processing
fees, harbor maintenance fees, U.S. inland freight, and rebates. Where
applicable, we made an addition for import duties collected and rebated
on imported raw materials used in merchandise exported to the United
States.
We calculated ESP based on the packed, CIF prices to unrelated
customers in the United States. We made deductions, where applicable,
for foreign inland freight, EIAK export fees, ocean freight (which
includes customs clearance fees), marine insurance, U.S. and Korean
brokerage and handling charges, wharfage, U.S. duties, U.S. customs
processing fees, harbor maintenance fees, U.S. inland freight and
container delivery, royalties, commissions, warranty, return set
losses, warehousing, credit, and indirect selling expenses. Where
applicable, we made an addition for import duties collected and rebated
on imported raw materials used in merchandise exported to the United
States.
We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as
outlined in Silicon Manganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994.
There were no other adjustments claimed or allowed.
Foreign Market Value (FMV)
In calculating FMV, the Department used home market price, as
defined in section 773 of the Tariff Act, since sufficient quantities
of such or similar merchandise were sold above the cost of production
in the home market to provide a basis for comparison. Home market price
was based on the packed, delivered price to the first unrelated
purchaser in the home market. Where applicable, we made deductions for
inland freight, discounts, rebates, advertising, warranties, credit,
and royalties, as well as making adjustments for differences in
merchandise and packing. We adjusted FMV for taxes in accordance with
our practice as outlined in Silicon Manganese from Venezuela,
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR
31204, June 17, 1994. The company's warehousing expense could not be
tied directly to either a particular customer or sales of the subject
merchandise, therefore it was treated as an indirect selling expense.
In light of the CAFC's decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AD-NM-TX-FL
Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13 F3d 398 (CAFC
1994), the Department no longer can deduct home market movement charges
from FMV pursuant to its inherent power to fill in gaps in the
antidumping statute. We instead will adjust for those expenses under
the circumstance-of-sale (COS) provision of 19 CFR 353.56 and the ESP
offset provision of 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and (2), as appropriate, in the
manner described below.
When USP is based on PP, we only adjust for home market movement
charges through the COS provision of 19 CFR 353.56. Under this
adjustment, we capture only direct selling expenses, which include
post-sale movement expenses and, in some circumstances, pre-sale
movement expenses. Specifically, we will treat pre-sale movement
expenses as direct expenses if those expenses are directly related to
the home market sales of the merchandise under consideration. Moreover,
in order to determine whether pre-sale movement expenses are direct,
the Department will examine the respondent's pre-sale warehousing
expenses, since the pre-sale movement charges incurred in positioning
the merchandise at the warehouse are, for analytical purposes,
inextricably linked to pre-sale warehousing expenses. If the pre-sale
warehousing constitutes an indirect expense, the expense involved in
getting the merchandise to the warehouse also must be indirect;
conversely, a direct pre-sale warehousing expense necessarily implies a
direct pre-sale movement expense.
When USP is based on ESP, the Department uses the COS adjustment in
the same manner as in PP situations. Additionally, under the ESP offset
provision set forth in 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and (2), we will adjust for
any pre-sale movement charges which are treated as indirect selling
expenses. Accordingly, because the Department has preliminarily
determined that pre-sale warehousing costs are an indirect expense, the
Department is also treating pre-sale movement costs as an indirect
expense. Therefore, no COS adjustment has been made for these costs.
For ESP sales, an adjustment for indirect costs has been made under the
ESP offset provision.
For comparisons involving PP transactions, we added direct selling
expenses including royalties, commissions, credit and warranties in
order to adjust for differences in circumstances of sale between the
two markets. In addition, indirect selling expenses were deducted from
FMV in an amount not exceeding the amount of commissions paid on PP
sales in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). For comparisons involving
ESP transactions, we deducted indirect selling expenses from FMV in an
amount not exceeding the sum of the indirect selling expenses incurred
and commissions paid on ESP sales, in accordance with 19 CFR
353.56(b)(2). No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Preliminary Results of the Reviews
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
weighted-average dumping margin for the April 1, 1988 through March 31,
1989, period for Daewoo is 4.00 percent. The company had no shipments
during the April 1, 1989 through March 31, 1990 period.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.38(c), case briefs and/or written comments
from interested parties may be submitted no later than 30 days after
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals
to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and
comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 353.38(d).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.38(b), within 10 days of the date of
publication of this notice, interested parties to this proceeding may
request a disclosure and/or a hearing. The hearing, if requested, will
take place no later than 44 days after publication of this notice.
Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the
Department for the date and time of the hearing. The Department will
subsequently publish the final results of this administrative review
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, since Daewoo has been reviewed in a period subsequent
to this period, the cash deposit rate for Daewoo will remain at 0.90
percent, the company's rate from the most recently reviewed period.
See, Color Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea; Amendment
to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (59 FR
21958; April 28, 1994).
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 Tariff Act, as amended (19 U.S.C 1675(a)(1))
and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: June 23, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-15954 Filed 6-27-94; 2:58 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P-M
