[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 146 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38987-38988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18741]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-008]
Color Television Receivers From the Republic of Korea; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 23, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of preliminary results of administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on color television receivers
(CTVs) from the Republic of Korea. The review covers four
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise and the period April
1, 1993, through March 31, 1994. Based on petitioners' withdrawal of
requests for review, the Department previously terminated the review of
three additional manufacturers/exporters.
We have determined that one of the four manufacturers/exporters
being reviewed made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United
States during the period of review. The remaining three manufacturers/
exporters failed to respond to our request for information.
Although we gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on
the preliminary results, no comments were submitted. However, these
final results reflect a change in the margin we assigned Samsung in the
preliminary results of review. Because Samsung had no shipments of
subject merchandise during the period of review, we preliminarily
assigned Samsung the margin (0.37 percent) calculated for the most
recent period (1990-91) in which it had shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States. However, pursuant to a remand ordered
by the Court of International Trade (CIT) (see United Electronic
Workers of America, et al. v. United States, Consolidated Court No. 93-
11-00719, July 5, 1994), we have determined that Samsung's margin for
the last administrative review (1990-91) in which it had shipments of
subject merchandise to the United States was 0.47 percent. See, Color
Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea; Amended Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 35895 (July 12, 1995).
While these final results reflect the change in Samsung's margin from
0.37 to 0.47 percent, Samsung's current cash deposit rate remains
unchanged at zero percent, reflecting the fact that Samsung's margin
remains de minimis.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hanley or Zev Primor, Office of
Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 7, 1994, the Department published (59 FR 16615) a notice
of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the
antidumping duty order on CTVs from the Republic of Korea (49 FR 18336,
April 30, 1984) for the period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994
(eleventh review). We received a timely request for review from the
United Electronic Workers of America, Independent (formerly the
Independent Radionic Workers of America), the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Electronic,
Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO, and the
Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, petitioners in this proceeding.
On May 12, 1994, the Department published a notice of initiation (59 FR
24683) covering the following seven manufacturers/exporters: Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
International, Inc. (Samsung); Cosmos Electronics Manufacturing, Ltd.
(Cosmos); Quantronics Manufacturing, Ltd. (Quantronics); Tongkook
General Electronics, Inc. (Tongkook); Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd., and
Daewoo Electronics Corp. of America, Inc. (Daewoo); Goldstar
Electronics International, Inc., Goldstar Co., Ltd., and Goldstar of
America, Inc. (Goldstar); and Samwon Electronics, Ltd (Samwon). On May
23, 1994, petitioners submitted a timely withdrawal of their request
for review of Goldstar. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) the Department
terminated the review of Goldstar on June 29, 1994 (59 FR 33486). On
June 29, and August 22, 1994, petitioners submitted additional requests
to terminate the reviews of Daewoo and Samwon, respectively. Pursuant
to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5), the Department terminated the reviews of Daewoo
and Samwon on December 23, 1994 (59 FR 66292). The Department has now
completed this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review include CTVs, complete and
incomplete, from the Republic of Korea. This merchandise is currently
classified under item numbers 8528.10.80, 8529.90.15, 8529.90.20, and
8540.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Since the order
covers all CTVs regardless of HTS classification, the HTS subheading is
provided for convenience and for the U.S. Customs Service purposes. Our
written description of the scope of the order remains dispositive. The
period of review is April 1, 1993 through March 31, 1994.
Final Results of Review
Samsung reported, and the Department verified through the U.S.
Customs Service, that Samsung made no shipments of subject merchandise
to the United States during the period of review. Therefore, Samsung's
current cash deposit rate will remain unchanged. This rate is zero
percent because the margin assigned to Samsung in the most recent
administrative review in which it had shipments of subject merchandise
(0.47 percent) was a de minimis rate.
Since Cosmos, Quantronics, and Tongkook failed to respond to our
questionnaire, we have determined that, in accordance with section
776(c) of the Tariff Act, the use of best information available (BIA)
is appropriate. Our regulations provide that we may consider whether a
party refuses to provide information in determining what is the best
information available (19 CFR 353.37(b)). Department practice dictates
that when a company fails to provide the information requested in a
timely manner, the Department considers the company uncooperative and
generally assigns that company the higher of (a) the highest rate
assigned to any company in any previous review or the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation, or (b) the highest rate for a responding
company with shipments during the period of review. See Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Antifriction Bearings (Other
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the
[[Page 38988]]
Federal Republic of Germany, et al., 56 FR 31692 (July 11, 1994). See
also Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1195, 1191-
92 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Krupp Stahl AG et al v. United States, 822 F.
Supp. 789 (CIT May 26, 1993). Therefore, we have used the highest rate
from the LTFV investigation, which was 16.57 percent, in determining
the margins for these three companies for this review.
Therefore, consistent with the preliminary results, the final
results for the period April 1, 1993, through March 31, 1994, are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung....................................................... \1\ 0.47
Cosmos........................................................ 16.57
Quantronics................................................... 16.57
Tongkook...................................................... 16.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No shipments or sales subject to this review. Rate from last segment
of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments/sales.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
will issue appraisement instructions on each exporter directly to the
U.S. Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of CTVs entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date of these final results as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit
rates for the reviewed companies will be those rates established above;
(2) For previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) If the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer
is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the
Department, the cash deposit rates will be the ``all others'' rate of
13.90 percent established in the LTFV investigation (49 FR 18336).
These deposit requirements will remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: July 20, 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-18741 Filed 7-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
