25450 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

Contractors that the Department selfinitiate a changed circumstances review.

The other request came from the leading

producer of finished drill pipe in the

United States, Grant Prideco. The latter

request was withdrawn.

We are initiating an antidumping duty

changed circumstances administrative

review to determine the extent of

domestic industry support for

continuing the antidumping duty order

on OCTG from Mexico with regard to

finished drill pipe.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

K. Drury or Richard Weible, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone (202) 482–3208 or (202) 482–

1103, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 8, 1997, the International

Association of Drilling Contractors

(IADC) requested that the Department

self-initiate a changed circumstances

review with respect to finished drill

pipe. On March 13, 1998, the

Department responded to the IADCO

request. On January 28, 1998, Grant

Prideco, Inc. requested revocation of the

AD order on Mexican OCTG with

respect to finished drill pipe. The

Department received letters in

opposition to this second request from

OMSCO Industries and Drill Pipe

Industries, Inc. on February 12, 1998,

and February 13, 1998, respectively. On

March 16, 1998, Grant Prideco

withdrew its request for a changed

circumstances review.

Since the Department’s response to

IADC on March 13, 1998, parties have

raised questions regarding whether

substantially all of the domestic

industry supports continuation of the

AD order on OCTG from Mexico with

respect to finished drill pipe. Therefore,

in light of the request originally filed by

Grant Prideco and the information

available to the Department, the

Department believes a changed

circumstances review is warranted. The

Department intends to examine

thoroughly the domestic producers of

the like product to determine which

companies are no longer interested in

the portion of the order with respect to

finished drill pipe. The Department will

conduct this review as expeditiously as

possible, allowing opportunity for all

parties to comment. The Department

will not revoke the order, in part, unless

domestic producers accounting for

substantially all of the like product have

expressed lack of interest in maintaining

the order with respect to drill pipe. The

Department interprets ‘‘substantially

all’’ to mean at least 85 percent of

domestic production of the like product.

This review is to determine the level of

support of domestic producers of the

like product for maintaining this order

with respect to finished drill pipe.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay

Round Agreements Act. In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

changed circumstances review, is

finished oil well drill pipe with tool

joints attached. This merchandise is

currently classifiable in the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) under item number

8431.43.8010 as ‘‘Parts suitable for use

solely or principally with the machinery

of headings 8425 to 8430, [o]f

machinery of heading 8426, 8429 or

8430: [p]arts for boring or sinking

machinery of subheading 8430.41 or

8430.49: [o]ther: [o]f oil and gas field

machinery.’’ Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Initiation of Changed Circumstances

Antidumping Duty Order

Administrative Review

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the

Tariff Act, the Department will conduct

a changed circumstances administrative

review upon receipt of information

concerning, or a request from an

interested party for a review of, an

antidumping duty order which shows

changed circumstances sufficient to

warrant a review of the order. In

accordance with section 751(b) and 19

CFR 351.216(b)(4) and 19 CFR

351.216(d), we are initiating a changed

circumstances administrative review.

We invite all parties to provide

comments on whether domestic

producers of the like product no longer

have an interest in maintaining the

order with respect to finished drill pipe

from Mexico within seven days of

publication of this notice of initiation.

The Department will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of preliminary

results of changed circumstances

antidumping duty administrative

review, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.216(b)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3).

The Department will issue its final

results of review in accordance with 19

CFR 351.216(e). All written comments

must be submitted in accordance with

19 CFR 351.303 and must be served on

all interested parties on the

Department’s service list in accordance

with the same provision.

This notice is in accordance with

section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act and

section 351.221(b)(1) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: May 1, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12203 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–028]

Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle From

Japan: Preliminary Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results

and partial recission of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

the petitioner, the American Chain

Association, and three manufacturers/

exporters, the Department of Commerce

has conducted an administrative review

of the antidumping duty finding on

roller chain, other than bicycle from

Japan. We have preliminarily

determined that sales of the subject

merchandise have been made below

normal value. If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results

of administrative review, we will

instruct the Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties based on the

difference between the export price or

constructed export price and the normal

value.

Because one respondent did not

permit verification of its questionnaire

responses and two other respondents

failed verification, we based the margins

for these three companies on the facts

available, in accordance with 776(a)(2)

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25451

issue, (2) a brief summary of the

arguments not to exceed five pages, and

(3) a table of statutes, regulations, and

cases cited.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cameron Werker at (202) 482–3874 or

Ron Trentham at (202) 482–4793, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Group II, Office Four,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 the

provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 353

(April 1, 1997).

Background

On April 12, 1973, the Department

published in the Federal Register an

antidumping finding on roller chain,

other than bicycle from Japan (roller

chain) (38 FR 9926). On April 2, 1997,

the Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of this

antidumping finding for the period of

review (POR), April 1, 1996, through

March 31, 1997 (62 FR 15655). On April

24, 1997, and April 29, 1997, we

received requests for administrative

review of this antidumping finding from

one reseller of roller chain from Japan

to the United States, Daido Tsusho

Company Ltd./Daido Corporation (DT),

and three manufacturers/exporters of

roller chain from Japan: (1) Daido Kogyo

Company Ltd. (DK); (2) Enuma Chain

Mfg. Company (Enuma); and (3) Izumi

Chain Mfg. Company Ltd., (Izumi). On

April 28, 1997, the petitioner, the

American Chain Association (ACA),

requested an administrative review of

these same entities, as well as six other

manufacturers/exporters and five other

resellers of roller chain from Japan to

the United States. The six other

manufacturers/exporters are: (1) Hitachi

Metals Techno Ltd. (HMTL); (2) Pulton

Chain Company Inc. (Pulton); (3) R.K.

Excel Company Ltd. (RK); (4) Kaga

Chain Manufacturer (Kaga); (5) Oriental

Chain Company (OCM); and (6)

Sugiyama Chain Company, Ltd.

(Sugiyama). The five other resellers are:

(1) Alloy Tool Steel Inc. (ATSI); (2)

HMTL/Hitachi Maxco Ltd. (Hitachi

Maxco); (3) Nissho Iwai Corporation

(NIC); (4) Peer Chain Company (Peer);

and (5) Tsubakimoto Chain Co./U.S.-

Tsubaki (Tsubakimoto). On May 21,

1997, the Department published a

‘‘Notice of Initiation of Administrative

Review’’ (62 FR 27720) covering the

POR April 1, 1996, through March 31,

1997, for the above manufacturers/

exporters/resellers (collectively, the

respondents).

On June 18, 1997, we issued

antidumping questionnaires to the

respondents. The Department received

questionnaire responses in July 1997,

August 1997, and September 1997. We

issued supplemental questionnaires in

August 1997, September 1997, and

December 1997. We received responses

to these supplemental questionnaires in

September 1997, October 1997,

December 1997, January 1998, and

February 1998.

Partial Recissions

As a result of facts examined during

the course of the POR, we have

determined that Peer made no

shipments of subject merchandise to the

United States during the POR. We

confirmed with the United States

Customs Service that Peer did not have

entries of subject roller chain during the

POR. Therefore, we are rescinding the

review with respect to this company.

HMTL is affiliated to a roller chain

producer subject to this annual review.

During this POR, HMTL and HMTL/

Hitachi Maxco made no shipments of

roller chain to the United States. We

confirmed with the United States

Customs Service that HMTL and HMTL/

Hitachi Maxco did not have entries of

subject roller chain during the POR.

Consequently, the issue of a separate

review rate for HMTL or HMTL/Hitachi

Maxco is moot and we are rescinding

the review for this purpose with respect

to these parties.

DT sold roller chain produced by

Enuma and DK during the POR. We

examined the information on the record

and have determined that, with respect

to sales of merchandise manufactured

by Enuma, DT is not a reseller as

defined in 19 CFR 353.2(s) because

Enuma had knowledge at the time of

sale to DT that the roller chain it

produced was destined for sale in the

United States. Therefore, for sales by DT

of Enuma-manufactured products, we

are using the prices between Enuma and

DT as United States prices and

including these sales in the margin

calculations for Enuma. With regard to

DT sales of DK-produced merchandise,

since DT is affiliated with DK pursuant

to Section 771(33) of the Act, we are

including all sales of DK-produced

merchandise by or through DT in the

margin calculations for DK. Under these

circumstances, we did not have a basis

to consider DT for a separate rate in this

POR and are rescinding the review for

this purpose with respect to DT.

RK and NIC exported, and ATSI

imported, roller chain produced by RK

during the POR. In selling roller chain

to NIC (RK’s affiliated trading company

in Japan), RK has knowledge that these

roller chain sales are destined for the

United States. All of NIC’s sales to the

United States of RK-produced

merchandise are made through ATSI

(NIC’s affiliated U.S. reseller). For

purposes of these sales, we have treated

RK, NIC, and ATSI as affiliated parties

pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act.

We used United States sales of RKproduced merchandise through NIC in

our margin analysis for RK. RK also sells

its merchandise directly to ATSI in the

United States, who in turn sells the

merchandise to unaffiliated U.S.

customers. We also used these

transactions in our margin analysis for

RK. In the absence of other sales, we did

not consider ATSI and NIC for separate

rates and are rescinding the reviews for

this purpose for these entities.

Preliminary Partial Rescission

Tsubakimoto received de minimis

margins in three consecutive

administrative reviews covering the

period 1979–1983 and in an ‘‘update’’

administrative review conducted for the

period 1986–1987. In the final results of

the 1986–1987 review, the Department

stated its intent to revoke the finding

with respect to Tsubakimoto. See Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Intent to

Revoke in Part: Roller Chain, Other

Than Bicycle, From Japan, 54 FR 3099

(January 23, 1989). At the time of

publication of its intent to revoke in

part, the Department was ordered by the

Court of International Trade not to

revoke the finding with respect to

Tsubakimoto pending a decision on a

matter before the Court regarding one of

the reviews for the period 1979–1983.

On May 15, 1989, the Court dismissed

this case, thereby allowing the

Department to proceed with revocation

in part, with respect to Tsubakimoto. On

August 14, 1989, the Department

revoked Tsubakimoto from the finding

on roller chain. See Revocation in Part

of Antidumping Finding: Roller Chain,

Other than Bicycle, From Japan, 54 FR

33259.

On April 28, 1997, the ACA requested

that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the sales made
25452 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

by Tsubakimoto to the United States.

The ACA stated that it believes

Tsubakimoto is selling Japanese roller

chain to U.S. customers that is

manufactured by companies that are

covered by the roller chain finding. The

ACA stated that its request does not

cover sales of roller chain produced by

Tsubakimoto itself but rather is limited

to roller chain manufactured by other

Japanese producers. We solicited

comments from Tsubakimoto and the

ACA concerning this issue.

In its submissions concerning this

issue, the ACA stated that the

Department’s revocation of Tsubakimoto

applies only to merchandise that has

been both produced and exported by

Tsubakimoto because the 1989

revocation notice regarding

Tsubakimoto stated that ‘‘[t]his partial

revocation applies to all unliquidated

entries of this merchandise

manufactured and exported by

Tsubakimoto and entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after September 1, 1983.’’ (See 54 FR

33259 (August 14, 1989)). Tsubakimoto

responded by providing evidence

indicating that during the 1986–1987

update review, the review upon which

the Department determined to revoke in

part, the Department based its de

minimis margin calculation on sales to

the United States made by Tsubakimoto

of roller chain both produced by

Tsubakimoto itself and purchased from

two other Japanese manufacturers.

After analyzing all the comments

received in regard to this issue, the

Department preliminarily determines

that the 1989 notice of revocation in

part applies to Tsubakimoto in both its

capacity as a manufacturer/exporter and

reseller/exporter of roller chain. The

evidence on the record demonstrates the

Department revoked the company

Tsubakimoto. By revoking Tsubakimoto

as a company, the Department applied

the revocation to the manufacturer/

exporter and reseller/exporter

operations the company Tsubakimoto

conducts. Although the ‘‘manufactured

and exported’’ language used by the

Department in the 1989 revocation

notice could be read to limit

Tsubakimoto’s revocation to roller chain

manufactured by Tsubakimoto, the

Department has preliminarily

determined that Tsubakimoto’s

revocation also applies to its reseller

function because the de minimis margin

calculated in the 1986–1987

administrative review, which is the

foundation of the revocation, included

sales made by Tsubakimoto of roller

chain it purchased from two other

Japanese manufacturers. In addition, the

Department’s determinations in other

administrative proceedings concerning

roller chain from Japan indicate that

Tsubakimoto was revoked as a

manufacturer/exporter and reseller/

exporter. Therefore, the Department’s

revocation was based upon

Tsubakimoto’s pricing practices as both

a manufacturer/exporter and reseller/

exporter. For the reasons discussed

above, we are preliminarily rescinding

this review with respect to

Tsubakimoto.

As provided for in section 353.54(e) of

the Commerce Regulations which were

in effect at the time of the tentative

determination to partially revoke the

order, Tsubakimoto agreed in writing to

an immediate suspension of liquidation

and reinstatement of the finding (as an

order) if circumstances develop which

indicate that roller chain, other than

bicycle, manufactured and exported to

the United States by Tsubakimoto is

being sold by the firm at less than fair

value (LTFV). See 48 FR 39674 (Sept. 1,

1983). If the Department determines,

from information available to it either

from submissions or other sources, that

circumstances have developed which

indicate subject merchandise is being

sold by Tsubakimoto, or that

Tsubakimoto is facilitating the sale of

subject merchandise, at less than normal

value in the United States, the

Department will examine whether the

elements necessary for reinstatement of

the finding exist at that time.

Although we are preliminarily

rescinding this review with respect to

Tsubakimoto, the Department will

continue to review this issue and

encourages interested parties to

comment on the appropriateness of our

determination.

Extension of Deadlines

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of a

preliminary determination if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the review within the

statutory time limit. On August 22,

1997, the Department extended the time

limit for the preliminary and final

results of this case. See Notice of

Extension of Time Limits of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 44643 (August 22, 1997).

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is roller chain, other than

bicycle, from Japan. The term ‘‘roller

chain, other than bicycle,’’ as used in

this review, includes chain, with or

without attachments, whether or not

plated or coated, and whether or not

manufactured to American or British

standards, which is used for power

transmissions and/or conveyance. This

chain consists of a series of alternatelyassembled roller links and pin links in

which the pins articulate inside from

the bushings and the rollers are free to

turn on the bushings. Pins and bushings

are press fit in their respective link

plates. Chain may be single strand,

having one row of roller links, or

multiple strand, having more than one

row of roller links. The center plates are

located between the strands of roller

links. Such chain may be either single

or double pitch and may be used as

power transmission or conveyor chain.

This review also covers leaf chain,

which consists of a series of link plates

alternately assembled with pins in such

a way that the joint is free to articulate

between adjoining pitches. This review

further covers chain model numbers 25

and 35. Roller chain is currently

classified under the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

subheadings 7315.11.00 through

7619.90.00. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description remains dispositive.

Verification

As provided in Section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by two respondents, OCM and Izumi.

We used standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the respondents’ facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the verification

reports placed on file in the Central

Records Unit (CRU) in room B–099 of

the Main Commerce Building.

Facts Available (FA)

1. Application of FA

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that if an interested party withholds

information that has been requested by

the Department, fails to provide such

information in a timely manner or in the

form requested, significantly impedes a

proceeding under the antidumping

statute, or provides information that

cannot be verified, the Department shall

use, subject to section 782(d), FA in

reaching the applicable determination.

Section 782(d) provides certain

conditions that must be satisfied before

the Department may, subject to

subsection (e), disregard all or part of

the information submitted by a

respondent. First, this section states

that, if the Department determines that

a response to a request for information
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25453

does not comply with the request, it

shall promptly inform the person

submitting the response of the nature of

the deficiency and shall, to the extent

practicable, provide that person with an

opportunity to remedy or explain the

deficiency in light of the time limits

established for the completion of the

review. Section 782(d) continues that, if

the party submits further information in

response to the deficiency and the

Department finds the response is still

deficient or submitted beyond the

applicable time limits, the Department

may disregard all or part of the original

and subsequent responses.

Section 782(e) of the Act states that

the Department shall not decline to

consider information deemed

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1)

the information is submitted by the

established deadline; (2) the information

can be verified; (3) the information is

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as

a reliable basis for reaching the

applicable determination; (4) the

interested party has demonstrated that it

acted to the best of its ability; and (5)

the information can be used without

undue difficulties.

2. Selection of Adverse Facts Available

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act authorizes the Department to

use an adverse inference if the

Department finds that a party has failed

to cooperate by not acting to the best of

its ability to comply with requests for

information. See the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA) at 870. To

examine whether the respondent

‘‘cooperated’’ by ‘‘acting to the best of

its ability’’ under section 776(b), the

Department considers, inter alia, the

accuracy and completeness of submitted

information and whether the respondent

has hindered the calculation of accurate

dumping margins. See e.g., Certain

Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes

From Thailand: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819–53820

(October 16, 1997).

A. Total Facts Available

Pulton

In this case, Pulton submitted its

questionnaire responses by the

established deadlines and agreed to

verification of its responses from March

16–20, 1998. Subsequently, however,

prior to verification, it informed the

Department that it would not allow

verification of its responses. Because the

Department was unable to verify the

submitted information, as required by

section 782(i) of the Act, the Department

had no authority to rely upon that

unverified information in making its

determination; thus section 776(a) of the

Act mandates that the Department use

facts available in making its

determination vis-a-vis Pulton. Further,

by refusing to allow verification, Pulton

also significantly impeded the instant

review, a result which section

776(a)(2)(C) and (D) require be

addressed with the use of facts

available. Although referenced under

section 776(a), Section 782(d) of the Act

concerns deficient submissions and thus

is not applicable to a verification

refusal.

As noted above, in selecting facts

otherwise available, the Department

may, pursuant to section 776(b) the Act,

use an adverse inference if the

Department finds that an interested

party failed to cooperate by not acting

to the best of its ability to comply with

requests for information. Where, as here,

the respondent does not allow the

Department officials to conduct

verification of submitted information, it

is deemed uncooperative, which

constitutes grounds for applying adverse

facts available. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Steel Wire Rod From

Venezuela, 63 FR 8946, 8947 (February

23, 1998); and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe From Romania, 61 FR 24274,

24275 (May 14, 1996). As explained

above, although Pulton responded to the

Department’s requests for information, it

refused to undergo verification, thereby

preventing the Department from

verifying the accuracy and completeness

of the information it had submitted.

Pulton’s refusal to permit the

Department to verify the information in

this review demonstrates that it failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability particularly in light of the fact

that Pulton has participated in

numerous administrative reviews and is

generally familiar with the verification

process. As Pulton indicated, it decided

not to allow verification in this review

because it would require two employees

to spend two weeks dealing with the

verification and its preparation. Pulton

did not indicate that verification was

impossible. Thus, consistent with the

Department’s practice in cases where a

respondent withdraws its participation

in a proceeding, in selecting facts

available for Pulton in this review, an

adverse inference is warranted.

In light of Pulton Chain Co., Inc. v.

U.S., Slip Op. 97–162 Court No. 96–12–

02877 (December 1, 1997), we are

assigning to Pulton an FA margin of

42.48 percent, the rate calculated for

Kaga in the instant review. For a more

detailed discussion of this issue, see the

April 30, 1998, Memorandum from The

Senior Director, AD/CVD Enforcement,

Group II, Office IV to the Acting Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration, regarding the

Determination of Facts Available for

Pulton Chain Co., on file in room B–099,

in the main Commerce Building.

OCM

With respect to OCM, although the

Department issued several supplemental

questionnaires requesting that OCM

report appropriate home market

comparison sales and appropriate cost

information, OCM failed to comply with

the Department’s repeated requests.

Moreover, at verification, OCM was

unable to explain (1) numerous

discrepancies with respect to its

unreported home market sales, and (2)

its cost calculation methodology.

Because OCM failed to provide the

necessary information in the form and

manner requested, and the information

could not be verified, section 776(a)

directs the Department to apply, subject

to section 782(d), facts otherwise

available.

Pursuant to section 782(d), we

provided OCM the opportunity to

explain its deficiencies. Although we

addressed deficiencies in OCM’s

original questionnaire response

regarding its reporting of home market

sales and variable costs of

manufacturing, OCM still did not report

all appropriate home market sales and

cost information. Specifically, we were

unable to determine the extent of

unreported home market sales of

merchandise identical or similar to

merchandise sold in the United States

because of various discrepancies

between the information originally

submitted and what we found at

verification. OCM was unable to explain

these discrepancies, or to identify which

home market sales had not been

reported. Further, OCM only reported

variable costs of manufacture (VCOMs)

for certain models of chain sold in both

the U.S. and home markets during the

POR. Because we can not determine the

extent of unreported home market sales

or the extent of unreported VCOMs, we

are unable to determine whether we

have the most appropriate home market

sales for purposes of calculating a

dumping margin.

Next, as noted we were unable to

verify the accuracy and completeness of

OCM’s costs. We could not reconcile

OCM’s reported material and labor costs

to its internal books and records and,

therefore, could not establish whether

the reported costs reflect actual costs for
25454 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

the POR. Thus, we were unable to

establish the credibility of the

information contained in OCM’s

questionnaire responses.

Finally, OCM has not demonstrated

on the record that it acted to the best of

its ability in providing the necessary

information. OCM elected not to follow

the Department’s clear instructions,

which were enunciated in several

questionnaires as well as during

meetings with OCM’s counsel, that

OCM must report all appropriate home

market sales and utilize an appropriate

cost methodology. For example, the

company used standard cost data to

report model-specific material and labor

costs, even though the Department does

not accept standard costs for purposes

of an antidumping analysis. Although

we instructed OCM to calculate a

variance between its standard and

actual costs for the POR, it compared

data that did not reflect either the

period used to calculate the standard

costs (April–September 1993) or the

POR (April 1996-March 1997) to

calculate this variance. In addition,

OCM only calculated its variance for its

four highest selling models of roller

chain and applied a simple average of

these variances to the standard costs

reported for all other models.

For the reasons stated above, the

application of section 782(e) of the Act

does not overcome section 776(a)’s

direction to use facts otherwise

available for OCM’s submissions. Thus,

the use of facts available is warranted in

this case.

As discussed above, in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available,

section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the

Department to use an adverse inference

if the Department finds that an

interested party failed to cooperate by

not acting to the best of its ability to

comply with the request for

information. In this context, however,

although the respondent may not act to

the best of its ability, it may be deemed

sufficiently ‘‘cooperative’’ so that the

Department may determine to apply FA

that are less adverse. See, e.g., Certain

Fresh Cut Flowers From Colombia; Final

Results and Partial Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 53287, 53291–53292

(October 14,1997) (Fresh Cut FlowersColombia (1997)); Antifriction Bearings

(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)

and Parts Thereof From France, et al.;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 2081,

2088 (January 15, 1997) (AFBs—1997).

As discussed above, we found

significant problems with OCM’s

submissions. Although we addressed

deficiencies in OCM’s original

questionnaire response regarding its

reporting of home market sales and

variable costs of manufacturing, OCM

still did not report all appropriate home

market sales and cost information.

Specifically, we were unable to

determine the extent of unreported

home market sales of merchandise

identical or similar to merchandise sold

in the United States because of various

discrepancies between the information

originally submitted and what we found

at verification. OCM was unable to

explain these discrepancies at

verification, or to identify which home

market sales had not been reported.

OCM did not provide in its

questionnaire responses either the

calculation methodology employed to

calculate its reported costs or

appropriate cost variances. In its

attempts to update standard costs, OCM

calculated variances based on costs that

did not reflect the standard or actual

costs for the POR. Accordingly, because

OCM did not act to the best of its ability

to comply with the request for

information under section 776(b), an

adverse inference is warranted.

However, because OCM made

substantial efforts to cooperate

throughout the course of this review, we

are resorting to facts available that are

less adverse to the interests of OCM.

See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers-Colombia

(1997). Therefore, we are assigning OCM

an adverse FA rate of 17.57 percent (a

rate calculated for another respondent

in a previous review of this proceeding).

This rate is a significant increase from

the company’s current cash deposit rate

and thus is sufficiently adverse to

induce cooperation by OCM in future

reviews of this proceeding. Since we are

applying FA based on a margin from a

prior administrative review of this

finding, we have satisfied the

corroboration requirements under

section 776(c) of the Act. See the section

below on ‘‘Corroboration of Information

Used as Facts Available.’’ For a detailed

discussion of this issue, see

Memorandum From The Senior

Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

II, Office IV to the Acting Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration regarding Determination

of Facts Available Based on Results of

Verification of Oriental Chain

Manufacturing Co., (April 30, 1998), on

file in room B–099, in the main

Commerce Building.

Izumi

Although the Department issued

several supplemental questionnaires

requesting that Izumi report appropriate

third country sales and appropriate cost

information, Izumi failed to comply

with the Department’s repeated

requests. Moreover, at verification,

Izumi was unable to explain: (1)

numerous discrepancies with respect to

its unreported third country sales; and

(2) its cost calculation methodology.

Because Izumi failed to provide the

necessary information in the form and

manner requested, and the information

could not be verified, section 776(a)

directs the Department to apply, subject

to section 782(d), facts otherwise

available.

Pursuant to section 782(d), we

provided Izumi the opportunity to

explain its deficiencies in our

sppplemental questionnaire of August

22, 1997, December 31, 1997, and

December 19, 1997. In addition, we held

a pre-verification conference with

Izumi’s counsel to ensure that Izumi

understood our concerns so that its

deficiencies could be remedied in time

for verification.

Although Izumi submitted its

questionnaire responses by the

established deadlines, we were unable

to verify their accuracy and

completeness. First, we could not

reconcile Izumi’s reported material,

labor, and overhead costs to its internal

books and records and, therefore, could

not establish whether the reported costs

reflect actual costs for the POR. Thus,

we were unable to establish the

accuracy of the information contained

in Izumi’s questionnaire responses.

Second, although we addressed

deficiencies in Izumi’s original

questionnaire response regarding its

reporting of VCOM, Izumi still did not

report all appropriate variable cost

information. Specifically, Izumi did not

report full POR costs for approximately

75 percent of its subject merchandise

sold in the United States and to third

countries. Izumi was unable to explain

why these costs had not been reported.

In addition, we discovered at

verification that Izumi did not report all

appropriate third country sales. Because

we can not determine the extent of

unreported comparison market sales of

identical and similar merchandise, and

we do not have accurate or complete

VCOM’s, we are unable to calculate

constructed value (CV) or to determine

whether we have the most appropriate

third country sales, for purposes of

calculating a dumping margin.

Finally, Izumi has not demonstrated

on the record that it acted to the best of

its ability in providing the necessary

information. Izumi elected not to follow

the Department’s clear instructions,

which were enunciated in several

questionnaires, that Izumi must report

all appropriate third country sales and

an appropriate cost methodology. For
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25455

example, the company informed us at

verification that it based its reported

material and labor costs on outdated

cost data from the initial antidumping

investigation in this case (that was

conducted in 1973). Izumi claimed that

it updated this data to reflect POR costs.

However, Izumi was unable to explain

the methodology used to calculate the

‘‘updated’’ costs, nor was it able to

provide any worksheets showing these

calculations, or linking the reported

costs to its POR internal books and

records.

For the reasons stated above, the

application of section 782(e) of the Act

does not overcome section 776(a)’s

direction to use facts otherwise

available for Izumi’s submissions. Thus,

the use of facts available is warranted in

this case. Further, also as discussed

above, in selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act authorizes the Department to

use an adverse inference if the

Department finds that an interested

party failed to cooperate by not acting

to the best of its ability to comply with

the request for information.

In this context, however, although the

respondent may not act to the best of its

ability, it may be deemed sufficiently

‘‘cooperative’’ and the Department may

determine to apply FA that are less

adverse. See discussion above, for OCM.

As discussed above, we found

significant problems with Izumi’s

submissions. Although we addressed

deficiencies in Izumi’s questionnaire

responses regarding its reporting of

comparison market sales and variable

costs of manufacturing, Izumi still did

not report all appropriate comparison

market sales and cost information.

Specifically, we were unable to

determine the extent of unreported

comparison market sales of merchandise

identical or similar to merchandise sold

in the United States because of various

discrepancies between the information

originally submitted and what we found

at verification. Izumi was unable to

explain these discrepancies, and at

verification only provided information

regarding a portion of the unreported

third country sales. Izumi did not

provide in its questionnaire responses

either the calculation methodology

employed to calculate its reported costs

or appropriate cost variances. Moreover,

at verification, Izumi was unable to

explain how it had attempted to update

the original investigation costs to reflect

POR costs. Accordingly, because Izumi

did not act to the best of its ability to

comply with the request for information

under section 776(b), an adverse

inference is warranted. However,

because Izumi made substantial efforts

to cooperate throughout the course of

this review, we are resorting to facts

available that are less adverse to the

interests of Izumi. See, e.g., Fresh Cut

Flowers-Colombia (1997).

Therefore, we are assigning Izumi an

adverse FA rate of 17.57 percent (a rate

calculated for another respondent in a

previous review of this proceeding).

This rate is a significant increase from

the company’s current cash deposit rate

and thus is sufficiently adverse to

induce cooperation by Izumi in future

reviews of this proceeding. Since we are

applying FA based on a margin from a

prior administrative review of this

finding, we have satisfied the

corroboration requirements under

section 776(c) of the Act. See the section

below on ‘‘Corroboration of Information

Used as Facts Available.’’ For a detailed

discussion of this issue see

Memorandum From The Senior

Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

II, Office IV to the Acting Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import

Administration regarding Determination

of Facts Available Based on Results of

Verification of Izumi Chain

Manufacturing Co., Ltd., (April 30,

1998), on file in room B–099, in the

main Commerce Building.

The Department also notes that the

majority of Izumi’s home market sales

were made to an affiliated Japanese

manufacturer. Due to this affiliation, the

Department will be reviewing, for the

purposes of the final determination of

this administrative review, the

appropriateness of continuing our

analysis of Izumi as a separate entity.

B. Partial Facts Available

DK and Enuma

In our initial questionnaire of June 18,

1997, we stated that if a respondent

elected not to supply difference in

merchandise (DIFMER) information and

we later determined for any reason that

a U.S. sale should be compared to a sale

of a similar product in the comparison

market, we might have to resort to the

use of facts otherwise available (FA).

In response, both Daido and Enuma

stated that they believed that they had

identical home market (HM) sales for

every U.S. model. However, both

respondents admitted that a matching

contemporaneous HM sale may not exist

for every U.S. sale. Both Daido and

Enuma contended that because of the

large number of U.S. and HM sales, they

had not been able to determine if there

are any unmatched U.S. sales. Both

respondents stated that they would

‘‘report either difference in merchandise

adjustments or constructed values,’’ if

they found that ‘‘unmatched U.S. sales

exist.’’

In the supplemental questionnaires to

Daido and Enuma dated September 2,

1997, and November 5, 1997,

respectively, we again informed the

respondents that if we determined that

there was not a contemporaneous sale in

the HM of an identical model for every

model of roller chain sold in the United

States, or such sales could not be used

as a basis for normal value (NV) for any

reason, and Daido and Enuma failed to

report their DIFMER data, we might

resort to FA in making our

determinations. In its September 16,

1997, response, Daido stated that ‘‘[n]o

response was required’’ while Enuma in

its November 24, 1997, submission,

provided no response except to state

that ‘‘[t]his particular question does not

require an answer.’’ Furthermore, in an

additional supplemental questionnaire,

dated December 11, 1997, we again

asked Daido to confirm that it had

reported a contemporaneous sale of an

identical or similar HM model for every

sale in the U.S. market, as requested in

the original questionnaire. The

supplemental questionnaire pointed out

that if there is not an identical or similar

HM match for each Daido sale in the

U.S. market, then it was Daido’s

responsibility to submit CV information

for those U.S. models which do not have

contemporaneous comparison sales in

the HM. Further, we reiterated to Daido

the requirement to report VCOM data

for both the home market and U.S.

models and the TCOM for U.S. models,

if there are sales of U.S. models for

which there are no contemporaneous

home market sales of identical

merchandise. Daido responded that it

‘‘believes that it has reported a

contemporaneous home market sale of

an identical model for every U.S. sale.’’

However, in performing product

comparisons for Daido and Enuma, we

were unable to identify HM sales of

identical products for every product

sold in the United States, as claimed by

the respondents.

Pursuant to 782(d), we provided

Daido and Enuma the opportunity to

explain their deficiencies. As noted

above, Daido and Enuma failed to

provide VCOM and/or CV information

in response to our initial questionnaire.

Each was sent a supplemental

questionnaire requesting the VCOM and

/or CV information. Neither Daido nor

Enuma provided the requested data.

Therefore, section 776(a) directs the

Department to use facts otherwise

available, subject to section 782(e).

Because the information at issue

submitted by Daido and Enuma was so

incomplete that it cannot serve as a
25456 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

reliable basis for the unmatched U.S.

sales, and by refusing to remedy the

deficiencies in that information Daido

and Enuma failed to act to best of their

abilities, section 782(e) authorizes the

Department to decline to consider the

deficient information and resort to facts

otherwise available.

The failure by Daido and Enuma to

report DIFMER and/or CV data,

information which we requested in our

original and in our supplemental

questionnaire(s) and information which

they controlled, despite our warnings

regarding the consequences of such an

action, demonstrates that Daido and

Enuma failed to cooperate to the best of

their ability.

Given Daido and Enuma’s lack of

cooperation, we are assigning their

unmatched sales an FA margin of 42.48

percent, the rate calculated for Kaga in

the instant review.

Kaga

As a result of our analysis of the

revised U.S. sales databases submitted

by Kaga, on January 22, 1998, we

identified a number of sales transactions

listed in the U.S. sales databases which

have missing values (e.g. VCOM, gross

unit price (GRSUPRU), etc.). In letters

dated March 25, 1998 and March 31,

1998, we requested that Kaga provide a

revised U.S. sales tape containing the

missing information we had identified.

Further, we requested that Kaga check

its databases to determine if any other

transactions not identified in our

request had missing values. If so, we

asked that this information be provided

as well.

On April 1, 1998, we received a call

from counsel for Kaga who explained

that in responding to our March 25,

1998, request for information regarding

missing values, Kaga discovered other

errors. We instructed Kaga to submit

revised sales tapes for the United States

and HM and informed Kaga that if we

found errors or had difficulty in using

the data on the revised tapes, we may

proceed with our determination based

on facts available.

On April 6, 1998, Kaga submitted

revised sales data for constructed export

price (CEP) sales and for export price

(EP) sales to one customer but stated

that it had been unable to locate any

missing data for sales to the other EP

customer. In addition, Kaga reported

that it had made corrections with

respect to packing, brokerage and

handling, sale date, and freight from

port to warehouse. However, in

performing product comparisons for

Kaga, we found several transactions

with missing values in the U.S. sales

databases, including VCOM, TCOM,

number of strands, and GRSUPRU.

Pursuant to 782(d), we provided Kaga

the opportunity to explain its

deficiencies. We sent Kaga a

supplemental questionnaire addressing

deficiencies in its response. Although

Kaga responded to our supplemental

request for information, despite our

warnings that we might proceed with

our determination based on facts

available if we found errors or had

difficulty in using Kaga’s revised data,

the information provided was deficient.

Therefore, Section 776(a) directs the

Department to use facts otherwise

available, subject to Section 782(e).

The application of Section 782(e) of

the Act does not overcome Section

776(a)’s direction to use facts otherwise

available for Kaga’s U.S. sales database.

Because several transactions in Kaga’s

U.S. sales databases have missing values

for specific variables that are necessary

for matching to HM sales, we are unable

to calculate a margin for these U.S.

sales.

Kaga’s failure to provide data for

specific variables which are essential to

our determination of model match (e.g.,

VCOM, TCOM, etc.), despite our

pointing out to Kaga exactly what was

missing, demonstrates that Kaga failed

to cooperate to the best of its ability

especially in light of Kaga’s ability to

provide the same type of information for

other sales.

Given Kaga’s lack of cooperation, we

recommend assigning to Kaga’s

unmatched sales, an FA margin of 42.48

percent, which is the rate calculated for

Kaga’s other sales in the instant review

and is one of the highest margins

calculated in the history of this

proceeding.

Sugiyama

As with the other respondents in this

review, pursuant to section 782(d) of the

Act, we provided Sugiyama the

opportunity to explain deficiencies we

noted in the responses. To that end, we

issued supplemental questionnaires to

Sugiyama on September 5, 1997,

November 26, 1997, November 28, 1997,

and December 17, 1997. We noted that

in its original Section B response,

Sugiyama reported that one of its

affiliated home market resellers

(hereafter referred to as reseller A) had

sales to two customers in the home

market during the POR. However, in its

revised database, submitted in January

1998, in response to the Department’s

supplemental questionnaires, Sugiyama

included previously unreported sales by

reseller A to multiple additional

customers. After careful review of this

submission, we discovered that

Sugiyama had increased its home

market sales database by more than 40

percent. Sugiyama’s failure to identify

the magnitude of the increased sales

resulted in the Department’s rejecting

this submission. However, we

reconsidered this decision and in March

accepted the submission, stating that we

were not certain how we would treat the

newly reported sales. Subsequently,

after the deadline had passed for

submission of new factual information,

Sugiyama advised the Department that

several of those additional customers

were affiliated with reseller A.

Given the lateness of these

submissions, the extent of the additional

information provided, and concerns

about establishing the accuracy of the

data, we are excluding this data from

our preliminary margin calculations.

Further, we have identified all U.S.

transactions where the normal value

that would have been used for

comparison purposes relied in whole or

in part on those newly reported home

market sales and applied a margin based

on the FA to the U.S. sales in question.

The preceding analysis demonstrates

that Sugiyama failed to cooperate to the

best of its ability. Thus, in accordance

with section 776(b), in selecting among

the FA for this respondent, we believe

that an adverse inference is warranted.

Given Sugiyama’s lack of cooperation,

we assigned as FA to the U.S. sales in

question, the 42.48 percent rate

calculated for Kaga in the instant

review.

Between the preliminary and final

review results, we will address the

appropriateness of including the

additional transactional data in our final

margin analysis.

3. Corroboration of Information used

as Facts Available

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes

the Department to use as adverse FA

information derived from the petition,

the final determination from the LTFV

investigation, a previous administrative

review, or any other information placed

on the record.

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the

Department to corroborate, to the extent

practicable, secondary information used

as facts available. Secondary

information is described in the SAA (at

870) as ‘‘[i]nformation derived from the

petition that gave rise to the

investigation or review, the final

determination concerning the subject

merchandise, or any previous review

under section 751 concerning the

subject merchandise.’’

The SAA further provides that

‘‘corroborate’’ means simply that the

Department will satisfy itself that the

secondary information to be used has
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25457

probative value (see SAA at 870). Thus,

to corroborate secondary information,

the Department will, to the extent

practicable, examine the reliability and

relevance of the information used.

However, unlike other types of

information, such as input costs or

selling expenses, there are no

independent sources for calculated

dumping margins. The only source for

margins is an administrative

determination. Thus, in an

administrative review, if the Department

chooses as total adverse FA a calculated

dumping margin from a prior segment of

the proceeding, it is not necessary to

question the reliability of the margin

from that time period (i.e., the

Department can normally be satisfied

that the information has probative value

and that it has complied with the

corroboration requirements of section

776(c) of the Act. See, e.g., Elemental

Sulphur from Canada: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR at 971

(January 7, 1997) and AFBs-1997.

As to the relevance of the margin used

for adverse FA, the Department stated in

Tapered Roller Bearings from Japan;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review 62 FR 47454

(Sept. 9, 1997) that it will ‘‘consider

information reasonably at its disposal as

to whether there are circumstances that

would render a margin irrelevant.

Where circumstances indicate that the

selected margin is not appropriate as

adverse [FA], the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an

appropriate margin.’’ See also Fresh Cut

Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 60 FR 49567.

We have determined that there is no

evidence on the record of the 1987–1988

administrative review, where we

calculated the 17.57 percent rate for

Hitachi Metals, that would indicate that

the 17.57 percent rate is irrelevant or

inappropriate as an adverse FA rate for

certain respondents in the instant

review. Therefore, where we have

applied as FA, the 17.57 margin from a

prior administrative review of this

finding, we have satisfied the

corroboration requirements under

section 776(c) of the Act.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered all products

covered by the Scope of the Review,

which were produced and sold by the

respondent in the home market during

the POR, to be foreign like products for

purposes of product comparisons to

U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of

identical or similar merchandise in the

home market to compare to U.S. sales,

we compared U.S. sales to the CV of the

product sold in the U.S. market during

the comparison period.

In past segments of this proceeding,

we have used the model match

databases submitted by the respondents

to identify identical and similar

merchandise in the home market. For

this review, however, we have

determined it appropriate to make the

analysis in this proceeding consistent

with the Department’s practice of

defining identical and similar

merchandise based on the product

characteristics outlined in the

antidumping questionnaire.

In the final results of the prior

segment of this proceeding, we stated

our intent to use the model match

comments received in that review as a

starting point for determining the

appropriate model match criteria to be

employed in future reviews. See Notice

of Final Results and Partial Recission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Roller Chain, Other Than

Bicycle, From Japan, 62 FR at 60475

(November 10, 1997). Using these

comments, we developed proposed

model match criteria and issued the

proposal to all parties in a letter dated

November 26, 1997. Additional

comments were received from all parties

on December 12, 1997 and December 15,

1997. Based on our analysis of all

comments received as well as our

examination of questionnaire responses,

product catalogs of various respondents

in the current review, and the model

matching methodology used by the

Department in prior segments of this

proceeding, we developed our model

match criteria based on eighteen

product characteristics as outlined in

our supplemental questionnaire of

December 19, 1997.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by the respondents

to the United States were made at below

NV, we compared the EP or CEP to the

NV, as described in the ‘‘export price,’’

‘‘constructed export price,’’ and

‘‘normal value’’ sections of this notice.

In accordance with section 777A(d)(2)

of the Act, we compared, where

appropriate, the EPs and CEPs of

individual transactions to the monthly

weighted-average NV of

contemporaneous sales of the foreign

like product.

Export Price

For the price to the United States, we

used EP, as defined in section 772(a) of

the Act, where the subject merchandise

was sold directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and the CEP methodology

was not otherwise warranted based on

the facts of the record. In accordance

with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we

made deductions, where appropriate,

for foreign inland freight from the plant

to the port, foreign inland insurance,

foreign brokerage and handling,

international freight, and marine

insurance because these expenses were

incident to bringing the subject

merchandise from the original place of

shipment in the exporting country to the

place of delivery.

Constructed Export Price

The Department based its margin

calculation on CEP, as defined in

section 772(b) (c) and (d) of the Act,

where sales to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States took

place after importation or where CEP

methodology was otherwise warranted.

In the case of RK, the company

reported its sales through NIC and its

direct sales to ATSI as EP sales where

the price and quantity sold to

unaffiliated parties were established

prior to exportation and the

merchandise did not enter ATSI’s

inventory. When sales are made prior to

the date of importation through an

affiliated or unaffiliated sales entity in

the United States, the Department uses

the following criteria to determine

whether U.S. sales should be classified

as EP sales: (1) whether the merchandise

in question is shipped directly from the

manufacturer to the unaffiliated buyer

without being introduced into the

physical inventory of the selling agent;

(2) whether direct shipment from the

manufacturer to the unaffiliated buyer is

the customary channel for sales of the

subject merchandise between the parties

involved; and (3) whether the selling

agent in the United States acts only as

a processor of sales-related

documentation and a communication

link (i.e., ‘‘a paper-pusher’’) with the

unaffiliated U.S. buyer. Where the

factors indicate that the activities of the

selling entity in the United States are

ancillary to the sale (e.g., arranging

transportation or customs clearance), we

treat the transactions as EP sales. Where

the U.S. selling agent is substantially

involved in the sales process (e.g.,

negotiating prices), we treat the

transactions as CEP sales. See Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel

Wire Rod From Spain , 63 FR

10849,10852 (March 5, 1998).

Based on our review of the record

information concerning RK’s sales

described above, we preliminarily

determine that these sales are CEP
25458 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

transactions. We note that according to

RK the customary channel is to sell the

merchandise prior to importation and

ship the merchandise directly from RK

or RK/NIC to the unaffiliated buyer in

the United States without being

introduced into the physical inventory

of ATSI. However, during the POR, FTM

& Associates (FTM), an unaffiliated U.S.

sales company, acted as a selling agent

for RK and RK/NIC with respect to all

RK-produced merchandise sold in the

United States that did not enter into

ATSI’s inventory. FTM was responsible

for introducing potential new customers

and sales to RK and its affiliates, U.S.

advertising, and all customer contact.

Thus, FTM acted as more than just a

paper processor or communication link

for sales of RK-produced merchandise.

Accordingly, for purposes of these

preliminary results, we are treating the

sales in question as CEP sales. For a

more detailed discussion of this issue,

see the April 30, 1998, Memorandum to

the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Import Administration, regarding

Treatment of Certain RK Excel U.S.

Sales of Subject Merchandise as

Constructed Export Price or Export Price

Transactions, on file in room B–099, of

the main Commerce Building.

We calculated CEP based on delivered

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. Where appropriate, the

Department made adjustments for

discounts and rebates. Also where

appropriate, we deducted credit

expenses, direct selling expenses and

indirect selling expenses, including

inventory carrying costs, which related

to commercial activity in the United

States. We also made deductions, where

appropriate, for movement expenses

(foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and handling, international freight and

insurance, U.S. duties, U.S. brokerage

and handling, and U.S. inland-freight

and insurance), and pursuant to section

772(d)(3), where applicable, we made an

adjustment for CEP profit. With regard

to RK and Sugiyama, the only

respondents in this review who furthermanufactured the merchandise in the

United States, we made a deduction for

the cost of further manufacturing in the

United States in accordance with

section 772(d)(2) of the Act.

Normal Value

Viability

In order to determine whether there

was a sufficient volume of sales in the

home market to serve as a viable basis

for calculating NV, we compared each

respondent’s volume of home market

sales of the foreign like product to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Act. For DK,

Enuma, RK, Sugiyama, and Kaga, we

determined that the quantity of foreign

like product sold in the exporting

country was sufficient to permit a

proper comparison with the sales of the

subject merchandise to the United

States because each of these

respondents made home market sales

which were greater than five percent of

its sales in the U.S. market.

Arms-Length Transactions for Enuma

and Sugiyama

Sales to affiliated customers in the

home market for Enuma and Sugiyama

which were determined not to be at

arms-length were excluded from our

analysis. To test whether these sales

were made at arms-length, we compared

the starting prices of sales of

comparison products to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers, net of all

movement charges, direct and indirect

selling expenses, discounts, and

packing. Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.45(a)

and in accordance with our practice,

where the price to the affiliated party

was less than 99.5 percent or more of

the price to the unaffiliated party, we

determined that the sales made to the

affiliated party were not at arm’s length.

We disregarded all sales of Sugiyama’s

and Enuma’s home market customers

that did not pass the arms-length test.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section 773(a)(7)

of the Act, to the extent practicable, we

determine NV based on sales in the

comparison market at the same level of

trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on CV, that

of the sales from which we derive

selling, general, and administrative

(SG&A) expenses and profit. For EP

sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the

level of the starting-price sale, which is

usually from exporter to importer. For

CEP sales, it is the level of the

constructed sale from the exporter to the

importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different level of trade than EP 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. Customer categories such as

distributor, original equipment

manufacturer, or reseller are commonly

used by respondents to describe levels

of trade but are insufficient to establish

an LOT. 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 the levels of trade.

Different levels of trade are

characterized by purchasers at different

stages in the chain of distribution and

sellers performing qualitatively or

quantitatively different selling functions

in selling to them.

If we find that the comparison-market

sales are at a different level of trade, and

the difference affects price

comparability, as manifested in a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales on which NV is based

and comparison-market sales at the

level of trade of the export transaction,

we make a LOT adjustment under

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally,

for CEP sales, if the NV 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 NV and CEP affects

price comparability, we adjust NV

under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act

(the CEP offset provision). See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62

FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).

In order to determine whether a LOT

adjustment or CEP offset was warranted

for Kaga, RK, Enuma, DK and Sugiyama,

we compared the EP and CEP sales to

the HM sales in accordance with the

principles discussed above. For

purposes of our analysis, we examined

information regarding the distribution

systems in both the United States and

the Japanese markets, including the

selling functions, classes of customer,

and selling expenses for each of the

above companies.

Based on our analysis of these factors,

we found for each respondent that no

LOT difference existed between its U.S.

and home market. Therefore, we have

made no LOT adjustment for any of

these respondents. For a detailed

discussion of the LOT issues, see the

April 30, 1998, memoranda to the

Program Manager from the Team,

regarding the LOT analysis for Kaga, RK,

Enuma, Daido and Sugiyama.)

Constructed Value

For Sugiyama’s, RK’s, and Kaga’s

products for which we could not

determine the NV based on home

market sales of roller chain, because

there were no contemporaneous sales of

a comparable product, we compared

U.S. prices to CV. In accordance with

section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we

calculated CV based on the sum of the

cost of manufacturing (COM) of the

product sold in the United States, plus

amounts for home market SG&A
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25459

expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs.

In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A),

we used the actual amounts incurred

and realized by the respective

manufacturers in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like

product, in the ordinary course of trade,

for consumption in the foreign country

to calculate SG&A expenses and profit.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We based NV on packed, ex-factory or

delivered prices to unaffiliated

purchasers in the home market. We

made adjustments, where applicable, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act. Where applicable, we made

adjustments to home market prices for

discounts, rebates, inland freight,

insurance, technical services, and other

direct selling expenses. To adjust for

differences in circumstances of sales

(COS) between the home market and the

EP and CEP transactions in the United

States, we reduced home market prices

by an amount for home market credit

expenses. For comparison to EP

transactions we also made an upward

adjustment for U.S. credit expenses. We

also made adjustments for indirect

selling expenses incurred on

comparison market or U.S. sales where

commissions were granted on sales in

one market but not in the other (the

commission offset), pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(b). To adjust for differences in

packing between the two markets, we

adjusted the home market price by

deducting HM packing costs and adding

U.S. packing costs. In addition, we

made adjustments, where appropriate,

for differences in costs attributable to

physical differences of the merchandise

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of

the Act.

Price-to-CV Comparisons

For price-to-CV comparisons, we

made adjustments to CV in accordance

with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.56 for COS differences. For

comparisons to EP, where appropriate,

we made COS adjustments by deducting

direct selling expenses incurred on

home market sales and adding U.S.

direct selling expenses. For comparisons

to CEP, where appropriate, we made

COS adjustments by deducting direct

selling expenses incurred on home

market sales. We also made

adjustments, where applicable, for the

commission offset in the manner

described above.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates

published by the Federal Reserve in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in effect on the date of sale of subject

merchandise in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In

accordance with the Department’s

practice, we have determined as a

general matter that a fluctuation exists

when the daily exchange rate differs

from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. (For

a detailed explanation, see Policy

Bulletin 96–1: Currency Conversions, 61

FR 9434, March 8, 1996.) The

benchmark is defined as the rolling

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine that a

fluctuation exists, we substitute the

benchmark for the daily rate. We have

determined that no fluctuation existed

in this review, therefore, we have made

currency conversions based on the daily

exchange rates.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997:

Manufacturer/exporter

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

Daido Kogyo Company Ltd ...... 0.03

Enuma Chain Mfg. Company ... 0.06

Izumi Chain Mfg. Company Ltd 17.57

Pulton Chain Company Inc ....... 42.48

R.K. Excel Company Ltd .......... 10.29

Kaga Kogyo/Kaga Industries .... 42.48

Oriental Chain Company .......... 17.57

Sugiyama Chain Company, Ltd 31.50

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. Issues

raised in hearings will be limited to

those raised in the respective case briefs

and rebuttal briefs. 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 37 days,

respectively, from the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

Parties who submit case briefs or

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief

summary of the argument not to exceed

five pages, and (3) a table of authorities

cited.

The Department will subsequently

issue the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written briefs or at the hearing,

if held, not later than 180 days after the

date of publication of this notice. 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 this review. The final

results of this review shall be the basis

for the assessment of antidumping

duties on entries of merchandise

covered by this review and for future

deposits of estimated duties. For duty

assessment purposes, for CEP sales we

calculated an importer-specific

assessment rate by aggregating the

dumping margins calculated for all U.S.

sales to each importer and dividing this

amount by the total value of subject

merchandise entered during the POR for

each importer. In order to estimate the

entered value, we subtracted

international movement expenses from

the gross sales value. For assessment of

EP sales we calculated a per unit

importer-specific assessment rate by

aggregating the dumping margins

calculated for all U.S. sales to each

importer and dividing this amount by

the total quantity of subject

merchandise entered during the POR for

each importer.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

antidumping duty review for all

shipments of roller chain from Japan,

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the

publication date, as provided by section

751(a) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash

deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be those established in

the final results of this review; (2) for

exporters not covered in this review, but

covered in the LTFV investigation or

prior reviews, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

from the LTFV investigation or the prior

review; (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 15.92

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate based on

the first review conducted by the

Department in which a new shipper rate

was established in the final results of
25460 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

antidumping finding administrative

review (48 FR 51801, November 14,

1983). These requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative review. 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 sections

751(a)(1) and 777 (i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: April 30, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12206 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

President’s Export Council: Meeting of

the President’s Export Council

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of an open meeting.

SUMMARY: The President’s Export

Council (PEC) will hold a full Council

meeting to discuss topics related to

export expansion. The meeting will

include briefings on trade priorities and

issues, the Asia monetary crisis, the

World Trade Organization, economic

sanctions and Virtual Trade Mission

activities. The PEC was established on

December 20, 1973, and reconstituted

May 4, 1979, to advise the President on

matters relating to U.S. trade. It was

most recently renewed by Executive

Order 12991.

DATE: June 2, 1998.

TIME: 10:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The J.W. Mariott Hotel,

Salon G, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C., 20004. This

program is physically accessible to

people with disabilities. Requests for

sign language interpretation or other

auxiliary aids should be submitted by

May 15, 1997, to J. Marc Chittum,

President’s Export Council, Room

2015B, Washington, D.C., 20230.

(Phone: 202–482–1124) Seating is

limited and will be on a first come first

serve basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.

Marc Chittum, President’s Export

Council, Room 2015B, Washington,

D.C., 20230 (Phone: 202–482–1124).

Dated: May 1, 1998.

J. Marc Chittum,

Staff Director and Executive Secretary,

President’s Export Council.

[FR Doc. 98–12281 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 042998D]

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

convene public meetings of its Special

Crustacean and Finfish Stock

Assessment Panels (SAP).

DATES: A meeting of the Crustacean SAP

will be held beginning at 1:00 p.m. on

Monday, June 1, 1998, and will

conclude by 12:00 noon on Thursday,

June 4, 1998. A meeting of the Finfish

SAP will be held beginning at 1:00 p.m.

on Monday, June 22, 1998, and will

conclude by 12:00 noon on Thursday,

June 25, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The Crustacean SAP

meeting will be held at the Crowne

Plaza Hotel, 333 Poydras Street, New

Orleans, LA. The Finfish SAP meeting

will be held at the Atlantic

Oceanographic Meteorologic Center,

4301 Rickebacker Causeway, Miami, FL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Leard, Senior Fishery Biologist;

telephone: 813–228–2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Panels will be convened to develop

alternatives for the overfishing criteria

as required by the Sustainable Fisheries

Act. Separate criteria will be considered

for each of the stocks or stockcomplexes managed under the Council’s

existing Fishery Management Plans

(FMP) for shrimp, stone crab, and spiny

lobster (Crustacean SAP), and for

migratory coastal pelagics, reef fish, and

red drum (Finfish SAP).

The Panels will develop proxies for

expressing maximum sustainable yield

and optimum yield in terms of

spawning potential ratio, spawning

stock biomass per recruit, or other

credible analyses as appropriate for the

stocks or stock complexes of each FMP.

The Panels will also develop

alternatives for rebuilding periods for

stocks that have been classified as

overfished by NMFS. The Panels may

suggest modifications to the framework

procedures for specifying acceptable

biological catch and total allowable

catch where appropriate. Each panel

will develop a report to the Council

setting forth their recommendations.

Although other issues not contained

in this agenda may come before the

Panels for discussion, in accordance

with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation Act, those issues may not

be the subject of formal action during

these meetings. Action will be restricted

to those issues specifically identified in

the agenda listed in this notice.

A copy of the agenda can be obtained

by contacting the Gulf Council (see

ADDRESSES).

Special Accommodations

These meeting are physically

accessible to people with disabilities.

Requests for sign language

interpretation or other auxiliary aids

should be directed to Anne Alford at the

Council (see ADDRESSES) by May 22,

1998.

Dated: May 1, 1998.

Richard W. Surdi,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12254 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 042998A]

Pacific Fishery Management Council;

Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery

Management Council’s (Council)

Allocation Committee will hold a

meeting which is open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will begin on

Friday, May 22, 1998, at 8 a.m. and will

continue throughout the day as

necessary.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Council Office, 2130 SW Fifth

Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR.