[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19420]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 9, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: International Trade Administration/Import Administration/
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 11, 1994, the Department of Commerce published a
notice of preliminary results of administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on color television receivers from the Republic
of Korea. The review covers exports of this merchandise to the United
States during the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993. Three
companies failed to respond to our questionnaire and received a rate
based on the best information available. For the remaining four
companies, we determined that there were no known shipments of the
subject merchandise during the period of review.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. Only one party submitted comments. The final
results remain unchanged from the preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 9, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Wendy Frankel, 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 30, 1993, the Independent Radionic Workers of America, the
United Electrical Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, the International Union of Electronic, Electrical,
Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO, and Industrial Union
Department, AFL-CIO (the Unions), the petitioners in this proceeding,
requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
color television receivers (CTVs), complete or incomplete, from the
Republic of Korea (ROK) (49 FR 18336, April 30, 1984) in accordance
with 19 CFR 353.22(a). On May 27, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published a notice of initiation of this review which
covered seven manufacturer/exporters for the period April 1, 1992,
through March 31, 1993 (58 FR 30,767).
Four respondents, Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd. (Daewoo), Goldstar
Electronics Co., Ltd. (Goldstar), Samwon Electronics, Inc. (Samwon),
and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), indicated that they had no
sales during the period of review (POR). The companies, Quantronics
Manufacturing Korea, Ltd. (Quantronics), Tongkook General Electronics,
Inc., and Cosmos Electronics Manufacturing Korea, Ltd., did not respond
to our requests for information. Thus, in accordance with section
776(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act), the Department was
required to use the best information available (BIA). Standard
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 to that company the higher
of (a) the highest rate assigned to any company in any previous review
or the less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV), or (b) the highest
rate for a responding company with shipments during the POR. See
Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United States. 996 F. 2nd. 1195, 1191-92
(Fed. Cir. 1993). See also 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.
Because Daewoo, Goldstar, Samwon, and Samsung stated they had no
sales during the POR, on June 24, 1993, the Department requested the
U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to confirm that there was no record of
entries of the subject merchandise, manufactured by these four
respondents, from the ROK during the POR. We received no affirmative
responses from Customs.
On July 23, 1993, petitioners provided the Department with import
data from the Port Import-Export Reporting Service (PIERS) (a private
for-profit computerized data bank) and alleged that Samsung, Daewoo and
Goldstar ``exported'' to the United States CTVs from the ROK.
In light of the petitioners' allegations, on February 25, 1994, the
Department again requested information from Customs as to whether any
entries of the subject merchandise, manufactured by these four
companies, had been made during the POR. On March 21, 1994, Customs
responded with a list of entries indicating that certain merchandise
under the covered HTS item numbers manufactured by respondents, had
entered the United States. The Department provided this information to
the respondents with a request for an explanation as to the nature of
these entries. On March 28, 1994, we received information from each of
the respondents supporting their claims that the entries in question
were of merchandise which is not subject to the antidumping duty order
on CTVs from the ROK. Respondents certified that the entries consisted
either of merchandise destined for third country markets or contained
television parts not covered by the antidumping duty order.
On April 11, 1994, the Department published a notice of preliminary
results of review (59 FR 17086). We gave interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. Only one respondent,
Goldstar, submitted comments, concurring with the Department's
preliminary results.
Subsequent to publication of the preliminary results, on May 23,
1994, the petitioners requested a withdrawal of their request for
review of Goldstar. Because Goldstar had no shipments during the POR,
we accepted the withdrawal request and are terminating the review with
regard to Goldstar in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). Goldstar's
rate from the prior review will remain in effect. The final results
with regard to all other respondents have not changed from our
preliminary results.
The Department has now completed this administrative review
pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act, as amended.
Scope of Review
The products covered by this review include color television
receivers, complete and incomplete, from the ROK. The order covers all
CTVs regardless of tariff classification. During the POR, the subject
merchandise was classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item
numbers 8528.10.60, 8529.90.15, 8529.90.20 and 8540.11.00. The HTS item
numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product
coverage.
Final Results of Review
We have not changed the final results from those presented in the
preliminary results of review. The final results for the reviewed firms
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd................................. \1\0.90
Samwon Electronics, Inc..................................... \1\0.53
Cosmos Electronics Manufacturing Korea...................... 16.57
Quantronics Manufacturing Korea, Ltd........................ 16.57
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd................................ \1\0.37
Tangkook General Electronics, Inc........................... 16.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No shipments; rate from previous review.
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 this administrative reivew, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed
companies will be the 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, the cash deposit rate will be 13.90 percent,
which is the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation,
as discussed below.
On March 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (1993), and
Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993),
decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company,
it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department
has determined that in order to implement these decisions, it is
appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by
antidumping duty orders. Therefore, the ``all others'' rate for this
case will be 13.90 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the
LTFV investigation (49 FR 7620, March 1, 1984).
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also 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 the 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, as amended, and 19 CFR
353.22(c)(1993).
Dated: July 30, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-19420 Filed 8-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
