[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62695-62700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25789]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-821]


Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether 
Assembled or Unassembled, from Germany: Preliminary Results and 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final 
Determinations of Scope Inquiries

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative reviews.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to requests by the respondent MAN Roland 
Druckmaschinen AG and the petitioner Goss Graphic Systems, Inc., the 
Department of Commerce is conducting administrative reviews of the 
antidumping duty order on large newspaper printing presses and 
components thereof, whether assembled or unassembled, from Germany. 
These reviews cover MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG and Koenig & Bauer AG, 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. The periods of review for Koenig & Bauer AG are September 1, 
1997, through August 31, 1998, and September 1, 1998, through August 
31, 1999. The period of review for MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG is 
September 1, 1998, through August 31, 1999.
    We preliminarily determine that sales have not been made below 
normal value for MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we 
will instruct the Customs Service not to assess antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on 
these preliminary results.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department of Commerce 
is rescinding these reviews in part as to Koenig & Bauer AG because we 
verified that it made no sales or shipments of subject merchandise 
during the review periods. In addition, we determine that certain LNPP 
parts imported by KBA North America Inc. Web Press Division from 
Germany during the period 1998 through 1999, pursuant to contracts for 
the sale of LNPP systems to Dayton Newspapers, Inc. and Fayetteville 
Publishing Company, are outside the scope of the order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Goldberger, Barbara Wojcik-
Betancourt, or Kate Johnson, Office 2, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, 
Import Administration-Room B099, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136, 482-0629, or 482-4929, 
respectively.

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 to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (April 1999).

[[Page 62696]]

Background

    On July 23, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register, 
61 FR 38166, the final affirmative antidumping duty determination on 
large newspaper printing presses and components thereof, whether 
assembled or unassembled (LNPP), from Germany. We published an 
antidumping duty order on September 4, 1996 (61 FR 46623).
    On July 21, 1997, the Department published Scope Inquiry 
Instructions and Revision of Suspension of Liquidation Procedures for 
Entries of LNPP Elements Outside the Scope of the Antidumping Duty 
Order, 62 FR 38975 (Scope Inquiry Instructions).
    During 1997, 1998, and 1999, KBA North America Inc. Web Press 
Division (KBA NA), an importer of LNPP elements (i.e., parts and 
subcomponents) from Germany, filed several scope inquiries pursuant to 
the procedures the Department developed subsequent to the issuance of 
the antidumping duty order (see Scope Inquiry Instructions, 62 FR at 
38975).
    On September 30, 1998, Goss Graphic Systems, Inc. (the petitioner) 
requested that the Department defer for one year the initiation of its 
review of entries by Koenig & Bauer AG (KBA) subject to the above-
referenced order covering the period September 1, 1997, to August 31, 
1998. On October 29, 1998, we granted the petitioner's request and 
deferred this review accordingly. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation 
in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 58009 (October 
29, 1998).
    On September 9, 1999, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice advising of the opportunity to request an 
administrative review of this order for the period September 1, 1998, 
through August 31, 1999 (64 FR 48980). The Department received requests 
for an administrative review of KBA \1\ and MAN Roland Druckmaschinen 
AG and its U.S. affiliate MAN Roland Inc. (collectively MAN Roland). We 
published a notice of initiation of these reviews, including the 
deferred review, on November 4, 1999 (64 FR 60161).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The administrative review of KBA includes the period 
September 1, 1998-August 31, 1999, as well as the deferred period 
September 1, 1997-August 31, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 24, 1999, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to the 
two respondents. We received responses during the period December 1999 
through January 2000. We issued supplemental questionnaires in March, 
April and June 2000. We received responses during the period April 
through July 2000.
    On March 13, 2000, the Department extended the time limit for the 
preliminary results in these reviews until September 29, 2000. See 
Postponement of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 65 FR 13364.
    On June 1 and 2, 2000, the petitioner alleged, based on shipment 
manifest data, that KBA NA may have failed to report all of its German 
parts importations for its U.S. press sales that were the subject of 
several scope inquiry requests in 1997, 1998, and 1999. Specifically, 
it alleged that KBA NA may have imported printing units of German 
origin, but never requested a scope ruling for these parts prior to 
importation. The petitioner requested that the Department send a 
supplemental questionnaire soliciting additional information on this 
issue.
    On June 6, 2000, KBA responded to the petitioner's allegations 
arguing that the merchandise at issue was not of German origin. On June 
14, 2000, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to KBA NA soliciting 
additional information on this topic. We received a response to this 
supplemental questionnaire on June 21, 2000.
    The Department conducted verification of KBA's responses during the 
period June 26 through August 4, 2000, pursuant to section 782(i) of 
the Act. In August and September 2000, the Department issued its 
verification reports.

Scope of the Reviews

    The products covered by these reviews are large newspaper printing 
presses, including press systems, press additions and press components, 
whether assembled or unassembled, whether complete or incomplete, that 
are capable of printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more 
than two pages across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page 
in which the lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of 
the direction of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of 
type parallel to the running of the direction of the paper.
    In addition to press systems, the scope of these reviews includes 
the five press system components. They are: (1) A printing unit, which 
is any component that prints in monocolor, spot color and/or process 
(full) color; (2) a reel tension paster (RTP), which is any component 
that feeds a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in 
width into a subject printing unit; (3) a folder, which is a module or 
combination of modules capable of cutting, folding, and/or delivering 
the paper from a roll or rolls of newspaper broadsheet paper more than 
two pages in width into a newspaper format; (4) conveyance and access 
apparatus capable of manipulating a roll of paper more than two 
newspaper broadsheet pages across through the production process and 
which provides structural support and access; and (5) a computerized 
control system, which is any computer equipment and/or software 
designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and coordinate the 
functions and operations of large newspaper printing presses or press 
components.
    A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the 
press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate 
such components into an existing press system.
    Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems, 
press additions, and press components are typically shipped either 
partially assembled or unassembled, complete or incomplete, and are 
assembled and/or completed prior to and/or during the installation 
process in the United States. Any of the five components, or collection 
of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for large 
newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press components, 
regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of combination with non-
subject elements before or after importation, is included in the scope 
of these reviews. Also included in the scope are elements of a LNPP 
system, addition or component, which taken altogether, constitute at 
least 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of any of the five major 
LNPP components of which they are a part.
    For purposes of these reviews, the following definitions apply 
irrespective of any different definition that may be found in Customs 
rulings, U.S. Customs law or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS): the term ``unassembled'' means fully or 
partially unassembled or disassembled; and (2) the term ``incomplete'' 
means lacking one or more elements with which the LNPP is intended to 
be equipped in order to fulfill a contract for a LNPP system, addition 
or component.
    This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or 
replacement parts imported pursuant to a LNPP contract, which are not 
integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are 
separately identified and valued in a LNPP contract, whether or

[[Page 62697]]

not shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from 
the scope of these reviews. Used presses are also not subject to this 
scope. Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an 
arm's-length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce 
newspapers in the ordinary course of business.
    Further, these reviews cover all current and future printing 
technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited 
to, lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress 
systems. The products covered by these reviews are imported into the 
United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00, 
8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper 
printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and 
8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems 
may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26, 
8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written 
description of the scope of these reviews is dispositive.

Final Scope Rulings for KBA NA

    In separate preliminary scope inquiry segments of the proceeding, 
the Department preliminarily determined, pursuant to the special 
procedures developed subsequent to the issuance of the antidumping duty 
order (see Scope Inquiry Instructions, 62 FR at 38975), that various 
LNPP parts or subcomponents for the production of a LNPP system sold to 
Dayton Newspapers, Inc. and to Fayetteville Publishing Company were 
found to be outside the scope of the order, and subsequently instructed 
the Customs Service to suspend preliminarily liquidation of these parts 
or subcomponents at a zero deposit rate.\2\ The Department stated in 
its preliminary scope ruling memoranda that it would make final 
determinations with respect to KBA's LNPP parts importations in the 
context of an administrative review, if one was requested, for a period 
which captured entries of the merchandise at issue and the completion 
(i.e., production, assembly and installation) of the LNPP components of 
which they are a part. Thus, the Department determined, in the context 
of these administrative reviews, that various LNPP parts or 
subcomponents for the production of a LNPP system sold to Dayton 
Newspapers, Inc. and to Fayetteville Publishing Company are outside the 
scope of the order because, when taken altogether, they constitute less 
than 50 percent of the cost of manufacture of the major LNPP components 
of which they are a part. With respect to petitioner's allegation that 
KBA NA may have inported printing units of German origin, we verified 
that these printing units were not of German origin. See Memorandum 
From Peter Scholl and Laurens van Houten to Neal Halper on Verification 
of the Cost of Manufacturing of Koenig and Bauer Modling-Modling, 
Austria, dated September 15, 2000. For complete analysis, see 
Recommendation Memorandum--Final Ruling on Requests by KBA NA for 
Exclusion of Certain LNPP Parts from the Scope of the Antidumping Duty 
Order on Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, 
Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Germany, dated September 29, 
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memoranda From The Team to Richard Moreland dated 
December 22, 1997, and January 27, 1998; Memoranda From The Team to 
Maria H. Tildon dated June 17, 1998, and August 4, 1998; Memoranda 
From The Team To Holly A. Kuga dated December 30, 1998, January 14, 
1999, and February 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recission in Part of Reviews

    In its December 22, 1999, Section A questionnaire response, KBA 
stated that KBA NA did not import and KBA did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the periods of review. The 
Department verified that neither KBA nor KBA NA made sales or shipments 
of subject merchandise during the review periods. (See Memorandum For 
The File From Barbara Wojcik-Betancourt and Kate Johnson on 
Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Koenig & Bauer AG and 
KBA North America Inc. Web Press Division in the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Large Newspaper Printing Presses and 
Components Thereof, Whether Assembled of Unassembled, from Germany, 
dated August 25, 2000 at pages 6-8). Therefore, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are rescinding in part these reviews of the 
antidumping duty order on LNPPs from Germany with respect to KBA.

Product Comparisons

    Although MAN Roland's home market was viable, in accordance with 
section 773 of the Act and our normal practice in this proceeding and 
in the companion proceeding involving Japan, we based normal value on 
constructed value because we determined that, even though the general 
product characteristics of LNPP systems are comparable enough for them 
to be considered a foreign like product, the physical differences in 
the sub-component specifications between LNPPs sold in the United 
States and the home market are so great that meaningful price-to-price 
comparisons cannot be made. See Large Newspaper Printing Presses and 
Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from Japan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 
55243, 55245 (October 12, 1999), followed in Large Newspaper Printing 
Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, from 
Japan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Reviews, 65 FR 7492, 7495 
(February 15, 2000) and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Large 
Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof: Whether Assembled or 
Unassembled, from Germany, 61 FR 8035, 8037 (March 1, 1996), followed 
in 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) 
(Final Determination).

Home Market Sales Used To Calculate Constructed Value Profit and 
Selling Expenses

    On June 23, 2000, the petitioner submitted a letter stating that 
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Inc. (MHI), a respondent in the companion 
Japan case, did not report home market sales that are contemporaneous 
with the date of its U.S. sale. On June 30, 2000, we asked MHI to 
report additional home market sales to the Department. Because this 
issue is not limited to MHI alone, we also requested additional home 
market sales from MAN Roland and from Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., the 
other respondent in the companion Japan case.
    Upon analysis of the home market sales on the record for MAN Roland 
as well as the respondents in the companion Japan case, we determined 
that the appropriate universe of home market sales used to calculate 
constructed value profit and selling expenses should comprise all sales 
made during the period beginning with three months prior to the 
respondent's

[[Page 62698]]

U.S. sale (June 1997),\3\ and then the nine subsequent months, 
including the month of sale (March 1, 1997-February 28, 1998). See the 
September 29, 2000, memorandum from the team to Richard W. Moreland on 
Universe of Home Market Sales Used to Calculate Profit and Selling 
Expenses for Constructed Value for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Each of the respondents in the Japan administrative review 
and MAN Roland in the Germany administrative review shipped/entered 
only one LNPP into the United States during the POR that was 
completely assembled and installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Normal Value Comparisons

    To determine whether MAN Roland's sale of a LNPP to the United 
States was made at less than normal value, we compared constructed 
export price (CEP) to the normal value, as described below.

Constructed Export Price and Further Manufacturing

MAN Roland

    We calculated CEP, in accordance with sections 772(b), (c) and (d) 
of the Act, for MAN Roland's period of review (POR) sale because the 
contract governing the U.S. sale was executed in the United States by 
MAN Roland's affiliated U.S. sales agent and the affiliated U.S. sales 
agent coordinated rigging and installation support, which we have 
classified as further manufacturing.
    We calculated CEP based on the packed, installed price to an 
unaffiliated customer in the United States. We made deductions for the 
following charges: foreign inland freight charges; combined German 
inland insurance, marine insurance and U.S. inland insurance expenses; 
German handling, ocean freight, U.S. handling and U.S. inland freight 
expenses; U.S. brokerage; and U.S. Customs duty (including harbor 
maintenance and merchandise processing fees). Although MAN Roland 
reported international movement expenses in U.S. dollars, a review of 
source documents indicated that the expenses were actually incurred in 
German currency. Accordingly, we used the expenses incurred in German 
currency for purposes of the preliminary results. We also made 
deductions for commissions, imputed credit, warranty, direct training 
expenses, and other direct selling expenses. We deducted further those 
indirect selling expenses that related to economic activity in the 
United States.
    In addition, we deducted the cost of further manufacturing or 
assembly, including installation expenses. We classified installation 
charges as part of further manufacturing, because the U.S. installation 
process involves extensive technical activities on the part of 
engineers and installation supervisors. See Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 
v. United States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 807, 815-17 (CIT 1998) (Mitsubishi).
    Further, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with 
section 772(d)(3) of the Act.

Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    The Department disregarded certain sales made by MAN Roland during 
the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation pursuant to the results 
of a cost test. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that MAN 
Roland made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of 
producing the merchandise in the current review period. As a result, 
the Department initiated an investigation to determine whether MAN 
Roland made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP 
within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
    We compared the COP figures to home market sales of the foreign 
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether these sales were made at prices below the COP. In 
determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below 
the COP, we examined whether: (1) within an extended period of time, 
such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such sales were 
made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time.
    The results of our cost test for MAN Roland indicated that certain 
home market sales were at prices below COP within an extended period of 
time, were made in substantial quantities, and would not permit the 
full recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. In 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded 
from our analysis the sales that failed the cost test and used the 
remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining selling 
expenses and profit.

Normal Value

Constructed Value

MAN Roland

    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated 
constructed value based on the sum of MAN Roland's cost of materials, 
fabrication, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses and 
U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales database. In 
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the 
amounts incurred and realized by MAN Roland in connection with the 
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course 
of trade, for consumption in the home market.
    In accordance with section 773(e)(3) of the Act, we added the U.S. 
packing costs to a constructed value net of packing.

Price-to-Constructed Value Comparison

    For the CEP to constructed value comparison, we deducted from 
constructed value the weighted-average home market imputed credit 
expenses, pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the Act. We imputed credit 
expenses for constructed value using the weighted-average, German-
currency-based, short-term interest rate reported for the POR, since 
home market sales were denominated in German currency.

Level of Trade and CEP Offset

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine normal value based on sales in the comparison 
market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the export price or CEP 
transaction. The normal value LOT is that of the starting-price sales 
in the comparison market or, when normal value is based on constructed 
value, as is the case in these reviews, that of the sales from which we 
derive SG&A expenses and profit. For export price, the U.S. LOT is also 
the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the 
exporter to an unaffiliated U.S. customer. For CEP, it is the level of 
the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer, after 
the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act.
    To determine whether normal value sales are at a different LOT than 
export price or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process 
and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales 
are at a different LOT, and the difference in LOT involves the 
performance of different selling activities and is demonstrated to 
affect price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent 
price differences between the sales on which normal value is based and 
comparison-market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make 
an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For CEP sales, 
if the normal value level is more remote from the factory than the CEP 
level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in 
the levels between normal value and CEP affects price

[[Page 62699]]

comparability, we adjust normal value under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 
Act (the CEP offset provision). The CEP offset is calculated as the 
lesser of the following:
    1. The indirect selling expenses on the comparison market sale, or
    2. The indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price 
in calculating CEP. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South 
Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
    We note that the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has held 
that the Department's practice of determining LOTs for CEP transactions 
after CEP deductions is an impermissible interpretation of section 
772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc. v. United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 
1221, 1241-42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). The Department believes, however, 
that its practice is in full compliance with the statute. On June 4, 
1999, the CIT entered final judgement in Borden on the LOT issue. See 
Borden Inc. v. United States, Court No. 96-08-01970, Slip Op. 99-50 
(CIT June 4, 1999). The government has filed an appeal of Borden which 
is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 
Consequently, the Department has continued to follow its normal 
practice of adjusting CEP under section 772(d) prior to starting a LOT 
analysis, as articulated by the Department's regulations at section 
351.412.
    In its questionnaire response, MAN Roland reported that sales to 
the unaffiliated customers were made at the same level of trade in both 
the United States and the home market. However, MAN Roland contends 
that, in the event that the Department classifies its U.S. sale as a 
CEP sale, then a LOT adjustment is appropriate to account for the 
differences between the actual LOT of the home market sales and the 
constructed LOT of the U.S. sale.
    As discussed above, we have determined that MAN Roland's U.S. sale 
under review is properly classified as a CEP sale. To determine whether 
sales in the comparison market were at a different LOT than CEP sales, 
we normally examine the selling functions performed at the CEP level, 
after making the appropriate deductions under section 772(d) of the 
Act, and compare those selling functions to the selling functions 
performed in the home market LOT. However, despite our requests, MAN 
Roland did not submit sufficient information pertaining to selling 
functions in the U.S. market for purposes of this review. Accordingly, 
we were unable to perform a LOT analysis on MAN Roland's sales. 
Therefore, we did not make a LOT adjustment to normal value.

Currency Conversion

    We made a currency conversion, in accordance with section 773A(a) 
of the Act, based on the official exchange rate in effect on the date 
of the U.S. sale as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of these reviews, we preliminarily determine that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for the 1998-1999 POR is:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Manufacturer/exporter                  Period            Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAN Roland..........................  9/1/98-8/31/99.........       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this 
notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested party may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If 
requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this 
notice, or the first workday thereafter.
    Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Case 
briefs from interested parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the 
issues raised in the respective case briefs, may be submitted not later 
than 30 days and 35 days, respectively, from the date of publication of 
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). Parties who 
submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested 
to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a 
brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a 
summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of 
statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    The Department will issue the final results of these administrative 
reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The 
party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of 
participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service upon 
completion of these reviews. The final results of these reviews shall 
be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of 
merchandise covered by the final results of these reviews and for 
future deposits of estimated duties. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), 
we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties all entries for any importer for whom the assessment 
rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). For assessment 
purposes, we intend to calculate an importer-specific assessment rate 
for the subject merchandise by dividing the dumping margin calculated 
for the U.S. sale examined by the total entered value of the sale 
examined.
    With regard to KBA NA's entries of LNPP parts in 1998 and 1999 
pursuant to contracts for the sale of LNPPs to Dayton Newspapers Inc. 
and Fayetteville Publishing Company, which were determined to be 
outside the scope of the order, we will instruct the Customs Service to 
liquidate these entries without regard to antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during these review periods. 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.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash 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 the reviewed 
company (MAN Roland) will be that established in the final results of 
these reviews, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 
therefore, de

[[Page 62700]]

minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the 
cash deposit rate will be zero; (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 these reviews, 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 30.72 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by the LTFV 
investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    These administrative reviews and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: September 29, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-25789 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P