[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42750-42755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20940]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-823]
Professional Electric Cutting Tools From Japan; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by Black & Decker Inc., the
petitioners in this case, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
professional electric cutting tools (PECTs) from Japan. The period of
review (``POR'') covers shipments of the subject merchandise to the
United States during the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996.
We have preliminarily determined that respondents sold subject
merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess
antidumping duties equal to the difference between the constructed
export price (``CEP'') and the NV.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding should also
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Jacques, AD/CVD Enforcement
[[Page 42751]]
Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3434.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 made by the
Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all references to the Department's regulations as codified
at 19 CFR part 353, as they existed on April 1, 1996.
Background
On July 12, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on PECTs from Japan (58 FR 37461). On July
8, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of
opportunity to request an administrative review of this antidumping
duty order (61 FR 35713). On July 31, petitioners requested that we
conduct an administrative review in accordance with 19 CFR
353.22(a)(1). We published the notice of initiation of this antidumping
duty administrative review on August 15, 1996 (61 FR 42416).
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of PECTs from Japan.
PECTs may be assembled or unassembled, and corded or cordless.
The term ``electric'' encompasses electromechanical devices,
including tools with electronic variable speed features. The term
``assembled'' includes unfinished or incomplete articles, which have
the essential characteristics of the finished or complete tool. The
term ``unassembled'' means components which, when taken as a whole, can
be converted into the finished or unfinished or incomplete tool through
simple assembly operations (e.g., kits).
PECTs have blades or other cutting devices used for cutting wood,
metal, and other materials. PECTs include chop saws, circular saws, jig
saws, reciprocating saws, miter saws, portable bank saws, cut-off
machines, shears, nibblers, planers, routers, joiners, jointers, metal
cutting saws, and similar cutting tools.
The products subject to this order include all hand-held PECTs and
certain bench-top, hand-operated PECTs. Hand-operated tools are
designed so that only the functional or moving part is held and moved
by hand while in use, the whole being designed to rest on a table top,
bench, or other surface. Bench-top tools are small stationary tools
that can be mounted or placed on a table or bench. They are generally
distinguishable from other stationary tools by size and ease of
movement.
The scope of the PECT order includes only the following bench-top,
hand-operated tools: cut-off saws; PVC saws; chop saws; cut-off
machines, currently classifiable under subheading 8461 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); all types of
miter saws, including slide compound miter saws and compound miter
saws, currently classifiable under subheading 8465 of the HTSUS; and
portable band saws with detachable bases, also currently classifiable
under subheading 8465 of the HTSUS.
This order does not include: professional sanding/grinding tools;
professional electric drilling/fastening tools; lawn and garden tools;
heat guns; paint and wallpaper strippers; and chain saws, currently
classifiable under subheading 8508 of the HTSUS.
Parts or components of PECTs when they are imported as kits, or as
accessories imported together with covered tools, are included within
the scope of this order.
``Corded'' and ``cordless'' PECTs are included within the scope of
this order. ``Corded'' PECTs, which are driven by electric current
passed through a power cord, are, for purposes of this order, defined
as power tools which have at least five of the following seven
characteristics:
1. The predominate use of ball, needle, or roller bearings (i.e., a
majority or greater number of the bearings in the tool are ball,
needle, or roller bearings);
2. Helical, spiral bevel, or worm gearing;
3. Rubber (or some equivalent material which meets UL's
specifications S or SJ) jacketed power supply cord with a length of 8
feet or more;
4. Power supply cord with a separate cord protector;
5. Externally accessible motor brushes;
6. The predominate use of heat treated transmission parts (i.e., a
majority or greater number of the transmission parts in the tool are
heat treated); and
7. The presence of more than one coil per slot armature. If only
six of the above seven characteristics are applicable to a particular
``corded'' tool, then that tool must have at least four of the six
characteristics to be considered a ``corded'' PECT.
``Cordless'' PECTs, for the purposes of this order, consist of
those cordless electric power tools having a voltage greater than 7.2
volts and a battery recharge time of one hour or less.
PECTs are currently classifiable under the following subheadings of
the HTSUS: 8508.20.00.20, 8508.20.00.70, 8508.20.00.90, 8461.50.00.20,
8465.91.00.35, 85.80.00.55, 8508.80.00.65 and 8508.80.00.90. Although
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes,
the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.
This review covers one company, Makita Corporation (``Makita''),
and the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996.
Level of Trade
To the extent practicable, we determine NV for sales at the same
level of trade (LOT) 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. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in
the home market. When NV is based on constructed value, the LOT is that
of the sales from which we derive SG&A and profit.
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 those 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 772(c) do not represent activities of the affiliated
importer and we do not remove them to obtain the CEP level of trade.
To determine whether home market sales are at a different level of
trade than
[[Page 42752]]
U.S. sales, we examine whether 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 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. Differences in levels
of trade are 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 no adjustment is necessary.
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 review, Makita reported two levels of trade in the home
market: (1) Sales made at the wholesale/distributor price level; and
(2) sales made to the retail level. Makita also reported twelve
channels of distribution for the two levels of trade in the home
market. Makita based the channels of distribution on which entity
(i.e., wholesaler, subwholesaler or retailers) in the distribution
chain Makita had billed or shipped the merchandise to.
Although Makita described twelve channels of distribution, upon
review we found that channels 1 through 7 were sales to the wholesale
LOT, and channels 8 through 12 were at the retail LOT.
We found that the two home market levels of trade differed
significantly with respect to selling activities. The level of selling
activities with respect to the retail sales was much greater than with
respect to the wholesaler sales. Based on these differences, which have
been reported as business proprietary, we found that Makita's selling
activities with respect to the levels of trade for wholesalers and
retailers in the home market are sufficiently dissimilar to conclude
that two separate levels of trade exist in the home market (i.e.,
wholesale and retail) (See Analysis Memo from Stephen Jacques to the
File, July 31, 1997).
Makita reported only CEP sales in the U.S. market. The CEP sales
were based on sales made by Makita to its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary,
Makita U.S.A. We determined that these sales constitute a single level
of trade in the United States. Because Makita's sales to the United
States were all CEP sales made by an affiliated company, we considered
only the parent company's selling activities reflected in the price
after the deduction of expenses and profit, pursuant to section 772(d)
of the Act.
Based on an analysis of the record evidence, we disagree with
Makita's assertion that there is no home market level equivalent to the
CEP level of trade. To determine whether sales in the comparison market
were at a different level of trade than CEP sales, we examined whether
the CEP comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing
process. We made this determination on the basis of a review of the
distribution system in the two markets, including selling functions,
class of customer, and the extent and the level of selling expenses for
each type of sale. Overall, Makita listed fourteen separate selling
activities which it performed in making sales in both markets in its
business proprietary chart in Exhibit B-20 of the November 27, 1996
questionnaire response. The majority (ten) of these selling activities
were either different in character or intensity between the CEP level
of trade and the retail and wholesaler levels of trade in the home
market. However, in comparing the CEP level of trade against both home
markets levels of trade we found that the CEP level of trade had
several (six) selling functions that were either identical to the home
market wholesaler level of trade or differed only in intensity, not in
character. In contrast, between the CEP level of trade and the retailer
level of trade in the home market, we found only one selling activity
that was identical to a CEP selling activity, while most of the
remaining selling functions were completely different from selling
activities Makita performed for its CEP sales.
Based upon this evidence, we have concluded that the differences
between the channels of distribution for the CEP and the home market
wholesale level of trade sales are not sufficient to constitute
different levels of trade. Therefore, to the extent possible, we have
used sales at the wholesale level of trade for comparison purposes in
our
[[Page 42753]]
analysis without making a level-of-trade adjustment.
In addition, we note that in a previous review of this order, the
Department found, based on verified information, that the wholesale
level of trade in Japan is equivalent to the CEP level in the United
States. See Professional Electric Cutting Tools from Japan; Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 46624, 46626
(September 4, 1996).
When we are unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the
home market at the same level of trade as the U.S. sale, we examine
whether a level of trade adjustment is appropriate. We make this
adjustment when it is demonstrated that a difference in level of trade
has an effect on price comparability. This is the case when it is
established that, with respect to sales used to calculate NV, there is
a pattern of consistent price differences between sales made at the two
different levels of trade. To make this determination, we compared the
weighted average of Makita's NV prices of sales made in the ordinary
course of trade at the two levels of trade for models sold at both
levels as indicated in Makita's Appendix B-21 of the November 27, 1996
questionnaire response. Because the weighted-average prices were higher
at one of the levels of trade for a preponderance of the models, we
considered this to demonstrate a pattern of consistent price
differences. We based our finding on whether the weighted-average
prices were higher for a preponderance of sales on the quantities of
each model sold. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 35713 (July 8, 1996). On
the basis of this analysis, we found that there was a pattern of
consistent price differences between the two levels of trade in the
home market. Thus, we made an adjustment to NV for the differences in
levels of trade when we made our comparison to sales at the retail
level.
Makita has requested a CEP offset in this review. Section
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP ``offset'' may be made
when two conditions exist: (1) NV is established at a level of trade
which constitutes a more advanced stage of distribution than the level
of trade of the CEP; and (2) the data available do not provide an
appropriate basis for a level-of-trade adjustment.
As we stated in the final results of the recently completed
administrative review of this product, ``the amended statute permits
the deduction of indirect selling expenses from NV as a CEP offset only
when a level-of-trade adjustment is warranted, but the data available
do not provide an appropriate basis to determine a level of trade
adjustment.'' See Sec. 773(a)(7)(B). In addition, the SAA clearly
states that the CEP offset is to be used in lieu of a level of trade
adjustment. See SAA at 829. In the preliminary results of this review,
we made a level of trade adjustment to NV in accordance with
Sec. 773(a)(7)(B). Therefore, we have not made a CEP offset.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
transaction-specific CEPs for comparison to monthly weighted-average
NVs. We compared CEP sales to sales in the home market and to
constructed value (CV).
Constructed Export Price
For Makita, we based our margin calculation on CEP as defined in
section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was first
sold in the United States after importation into the United States by
Makita U.S.A., a seller affiliated with Makita. We calculated CEP based
on packed, delivered prices to the first unrelated purchaser in the
United States.
We deducted Japanese and U.S. inland freight, ocean freight,
insurance, brokerage and handling pursuant to section 772(c)(2) of the
Act. We also deducted an amount from the price for the following
expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, which related
to economic activities in the United States: commissions, direct
selling expenses, including credit expenses, and indirect selling
expenses, including inventory carrying costs. We also made deductions
for discounts and rebates. Finally, we made an adjustment for profit
allocated to these expenses in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the
Act.
Normal Value
We compared the aggregate volume of Makita's home-market sales of
the foreign like product and U.S. sales of the subject merchandise to
determine whether the volume of the foreign like product Makita sold in
Japan was sufficient, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to
form a basis for NV. Because Makita's volume of home-market sales of
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its U.S. sales of
subject merchandise, 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 Japan.
In calculating NV, we disregarded sales of the foreign like product
to affiliated customers in the home market where we determined that
such sales were not made at arm's length. To test whether these sales
were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales of
the foreign like product to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net
of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and
packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was on average 99.5
percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated party, we determined
that the sale made to the affiliated party was at arm's-length. Where
no affiliated customer ratio could be constructed because identical
merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated customers, we were unable to
determine that these sales were made at arm's length and, therefore,
excluded them from our analysis. See Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Argentina, (58 FR 37062, 37077 (July 9, 1993)). Where the
exclusion of such sales eliminated all sales of the most appropriate
comparison product based on our model-matching hierarchy, we made
comparisons to the next most similar model.
We based home-market prices on the packed, delivered prices to
affiliated or unaffiliated purchasers in the home market. Where
applicable, we made adjustments for differences in packing and for
movement expenses in accordance with section 773(a)(6) (A) and (B) of
the Act. We also made adjustments for discounts and rebates, and
differences in cost attributable to the differences in physical
characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56. If appropriate, we made
circumstance of sale adjustments by deducting home-market direct
selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, except those
deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP pursuant to section
772(d) of the Act.
We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product was
first sold for consumption in Japan, in the usual commercial
quantities, in the ordinary course of trade and in accordance with
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. To extent practicable, we based NV
on sales at the same level of trade as the CEP sales. If NV was
calculated at a different level of trade, we made an adjustment, in
accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act. This adjustment is
discussed further in the Level of Trade section above.
[[Page 42754]]
Cost of Production Analysis
On December 13, 1996, Black & Decker (U.S.), the petitioner in the
LTFV investigation, alleged that respondent Makita made home market
sales of professional electric cutting tools at prices below the cost
of production (``COP'') during this POR and provided information in
support those allegations.
After petitioner's December 1996 allegation, the Department
published the final results of the second administrative review on
Professional Electric Cutting Tools from Japan (62 FR 386, January 3,
1997). In that most recently completed review of Makita, the Department
disregarded sales by Makita at prices below cost, pursuant to section
773(b)(1). Because the Department disregarded sales below the COP in
the last completed review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales of the foreign like product under consideration for
the determination of NV in this review may have been made at prices
below the COP as provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Therefore, we did not consider petitioner's allegation, but pursuant to
section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated an investigation to
determine whether Makita made home market sales during the POR at
prices below its COP.
A. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials
and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus
amounts for home market selling, general and administrative (SG&A)
expenses and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the
Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by
Makita in their questionnaire responses.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of the
subject merchandise were made at prices below COP within an extended
period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices
permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We
compared model-specific COPs to the reported home market prices less
any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates and direct selling
expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less
than COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product
because we determine that the below-cost sales are not made in
substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20
percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the
POR are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales
because we find such sales to be made in substantial quantities within
an extended period and were at prices which would not permit the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time (see section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act). Based on this test, for these preliminary
results, we disregarded certain of Makita's below-cost sales. Where we
disregarded all contemporaneous sales of the comparison product based
on this test, we calculated NV based on CV, in accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act.
Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we used CV as the
basis for NV when there were no usable sales of the foreign like
product in Japan. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of
the Act. We included the cost of materials and fabrication, SG&A
expenses, and profit. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the
Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the actual amounts incurred
and realized by Makita in connection with the production and sale of
the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for
consumption in Japan. We used the weighted-average home market selling
expenses.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act for differences in the
circumstances of sale (COS). We made COS adjustments by deducting home
direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, except
those deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP pursuant to
section 772(d) of the Act. Where appropriate we made level of trade
adjustments pursuant to 773(a)(7)(A).
Duty Absorption
On December 13, 1996, the petitioner requested that the Department
examine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR.
Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that the Department, if
requested, shall determine, during an administrative review initiated
two years or four years after publication of the order, whether
antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign producer or exporter
subject to the order if the subject merchandise is sold in the U.S.
through an affiliated importer. As noted above, this proceeding is
governed by the provisions of the Act as they existed on January 1,
1995, which includes section 751(a)(4). However, the regulations
applicable to this proceeding do not address duty absorption.
Therefore, section 351.701 of the new regulations (19 CFR part 351)
serves as a statement of the Department's interpretation of the
requirements of the Act regarding duty absorption.
Under section 751(c)(6)(C), orders that were in effect on January
1, 1995, constitute transition orders. Under section 751(c)(6)(D), the
Department is to treat transition orders, such as the 1993 order at
issue, as being issued on January 1, 1995. Section 351.213(j)(2) of the
Department's new antidumping duty regulations provides that the
Department will make a duty absorption determination, if requested by a
domestic interested party, for any administrative review initiated in
1996 or 1998. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final
Rule, 62 FR 2295, 27394 (May 19, 1997). The preamble to the antidumping
regulations explains that reviews initiated in 1996 will be considered
initiated in the second year and reviews initiated in 1998 will be
considered initiated in the fourth year. See 62 FR 27318.
This approach ensures that interested parties will have the
opportunity for a duty absorption inquiry prior to a sunset review of
the order under section 751(c) in cases where the second and fourth
years following issuance of an order have already passed. Because the
order on professional electric cutting tools from Japan had been in
effect since 1993, this is a transition order. Therefore, the
Department will first consider a request for an absorption
determination during a review initiated in 1996. This being a review
initiated in 1996, we are making a duty-absorption determination as
part of this segment of the proceeding.
The statute provides for a determination on duty absorption if the
subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated
importer. In this case, Makita U.S.A. is the importer of record. Makita
U.S.A. is wholly-owned by Makita Corporation of Japan. Therefore, the
importer and exporter are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section
751(a)(4). Furthermore, we have preliminary determined that there is a
dumping margin for Makita on 16.3 percent of its U.S. sales during the
POR. In addition, we cannot conclude from the record that the
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States will pay the ultimately
assessed duty. Therefore, based on these
[[Page 42755]]
circumstances, we preliminarily find that antidumping duties have been
absorbed by Makita on 16.3 percent of its U.S. sales.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June
30, 1995, through July 1, 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makita Corporation........................................... 0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the
first business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or other written
comments from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30
days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be
filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this
notice. The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in any
written comments or at a hearing, not later than 120 days after the
date of publication of this notice.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have
calculated an importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rate based
on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for
the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value of
the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the
POR. (This is equivalent to dividing the total amount of antidumping
duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory
NV and statutory EP or CEP, by the total statutory EP or CEP value of
the sales compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference
between EP or CEP and customs value for all merchandise examined during
the POR).
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Makita will be the
rate established in the final results of this review (except that no
deposit will be required for Makita if we find zero or de minimis
margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (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)
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 54.52 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by
the LTFV investigation.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R.
353.22(c)(5).
Dated: July 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-20940 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
