Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37329

1 In its questionnaire response dated October 31,

1997, Daesang was referred to as Miwon Co., Ltd.

Daesang advised the Department by letter dated

December 5, 1997 that its name had been changed.

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–3464 or

(202) 482–1276, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Commerce (Department)

initiated this administrative review on

November 26, 1997 (62 FR 63069).

Because it is not practicable to complete

this review within the original time

limit set forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (i.e.,

July 3, 1998 (extended to July 6, 1998

because of Holiday)), pursuant to that

same section, the Department is

extending the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results until October

31, 1998. See the July 6, 1998

Memorandum from Susan Kuhbach,

Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement to

Richard W. Moreland, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

which is on file in the Central Records

Unit, Room B–099 of the Department’s

headquarters.

Dated: July 6, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18444 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–805]

Industrial Nitrocellulose From the

Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

respondent, Daesang Corporation

(Daesang) 1 the Department of

Commerce (the Department) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on

industrial nitrocellulose from the

Republic of Korea (Korea). The review

covers one manufacturer/exporter of the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the period July 1, 1996

through June 30, 1997. The review

indicates the existence of dumping

margins during the review period.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below normal

value (NV). If these preliminary results

are adopted in our final results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties based on the

difference between United States price

(U.S. price) and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elfi

Blum or Maureen Flannery, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

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

telephone: (202) 482–0197 or 482-3020,

respectively.

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 of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (62FR 27296, May 19, 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 10, 1990, the Department

published in the Federal Register (55

FR 28267) the antidumping order on

industrial nitrocellulose (INC) from

Korea. On July 2, 1997, the Department

published in the Federal Register (62

FR 38973) a notice of opportunity to

request an administrative review of this

antidumping duty order. On July 31,

1997, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.213, one exporter of the subject

merchandise to the United States,

Daesang, requested that the Department

conduct an administrative review of its

exports of subject merchandise to the

United States. We published a notice of

initiation of this administrative review

on September 25, 1997 (62 FR 50292),

covering the period July 1, 1996 through

June 30, 1997.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of INC from Korea. INC is a

dry, white amorphous synthetic

chemical with a nitrogen content

between 10.8 and 12.2 percent, and is

produced from the reaction of cellulose

with nitric acid. INC is used as a filmformer in coatings, lacquers, furniture

finishes, and printing inks. The scope of

this order does not include explosive

grade nitrocellulose, which has a

nitrogen content of greater than 12.2

percent.

INC is currently classified under

Harmonized Tariff System (HTS)

subheading 3912.20.00. While the HTS

item number is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description remains dispositive

as to the scope of the product coverage.

The review period is July 1, 1996

through June 30, 1997.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we conducted a U.S. verification of

the questionnaire responses submitted

by Daesang Corporation, concerning its

U.S. affiliate, Daesang America. We

used standard verification procedures,

including the examination of relevant

accounting, sales, and other financial

records, and the selection of original

documentation containing relevant

information. Our verification results are

outlined in the public version of the

verification report.

United States Price

In calculating the United States Price

(USP), we used export price (EP), in

accordance with section 772 (a) and (c)

of the Act, because Daesang’s sales to

the first unaffiliated purchaser occurred

before importation into the United

States, and because constructed export

price (CEP) methodology was not

otherwise indicated. We based EP on

the packed prices to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. We

made deductions from the starting price,

where appropriate, for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling,

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

customs brokerage and U.S. duties. We

also added an amount for duty

drawback. No other adjustments were

claimed or allowed.

Normal Value

In calculating NV, we used home

market prices to unaffiliated purchasers,

as defined in section 773 of the Act. 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 Daesang’s

volume of home market sales of the

subject merchandise to the volume of

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of

the Act. Because Daesang’s volume of

home market sales of the subject

merchandise was greater than five

percent of its volume of U.S. sales of the

subject merchandise, we determined

that the home market provides a viable

basis for calculating NV for Daesang.
37330 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

We based NV on the gross unit price,

and made deductions, where

appropriate, for inland freight from the

plant to the warehouse, inland freight

from the plant or warehouse to the

customer, presale warehousing

expenses, handling charges, and

commissions. We made a circumstanceof-sale adjustment, where appropriate,

by deducting home market direct selling

expenses and adding U.S. direct selling

expenses. We also made adjustments,

where applicable, for U.S. indirect

selling expenses to offset home market

commissions.

Level of Trade

In accordance with section

773(a)(1)(B) 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

transaction. The NV LOT is that of the

starting-price sales in the comparison

market or, when NV is based on

constructed value, that of the sales from

which we derive selling, general and

administrative expenses and profit. For

EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the

starting-price sale, which is usually

from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, 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 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 LOT

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 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-toLength Carbon Steel Plate From South

Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November

19, 1997).

Daesang did not claim a LOT

adjustment; however, we requested

information concerning Daesang’s

distribution system, including classes of

customers, selling functions, and selling

expenses, to determine whether such an

adjustment was necessary. Daesang

reported that all sales to the United

States during the Period of Review

(POR) were to distributors, and sales in

the comparison market, the home

market in this case, were to end-users or

distributors. Daesang claimed that there

were no differences in selling functions

or selling expenses between sales in the

home market and sales in the United

States, nor did we find any such

difference. Therefore, we preliminarily

determine that sales in the home market

and sales in the United States are at the

same LOT, and that no adjustment is

warranted.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the period

July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997:

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

Daesang Corporation .................. 8.72

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.224. Any interested

party may request a hearing within 30

days of publication in accordance with

19 CFR 351.310. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held 44 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter. Interested parties

may submit case briefs within 30 days

of the date of publication of this notice

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309.

Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited

to issues raised in the case briefs, may

be filed within five days after the time

limit for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR

351.309. Parties who submit argument

in this proceeding are requested to

submit with the argument (1) a

statement of the issue and (2) a brief

summary of the argument. The

Department will publish a notice of

final results of this administrative

review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such

comments, not later than 120 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

Upon issuance of the final results of

review, the Department shall determine,

and the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We have calculated importerspecific ad valorem duty assessment

rates based on the ratio of the total

amount of dumping margins calculated

for the examined sales made during the

POR to the total customs value of the

sales used to calculate those duties.

These rates will be assessed uniformly

on all entries of each particular importer

made during the POR. (This is

equivalent to dividing the total amount

of antidumping duties, which are

calculated by taking the difference

between statutory NV and statutory EP,

by the total statutory EP value of the

sales compared, and adjusting the result

by the average difference between EP

and customs value for all merchandise

during the POR.)

The final results of this review shall

be the basis for the assessment of

antidumping duties on entries of

merchandise covered by the

determination and for future deposits of

estimated duties. Upon completion of

this review, the Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of INC from Korea entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Daesang will be the rate

established in the final results of this

review; (2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

the company-specific rate published for

the most recent period; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a prior review, or the original

less-than-fair-value 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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be the rate established in the

investigation of sales at less than fair

value, which is 66.3 percent. See 55 FR

28267 (May 22, 1990).

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

Notification of Interested Parties

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under section 19 CFR

351.402(f) of the Department’s

regulations to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping

duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during this review

period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the

Secretary’s presumption that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and the subsequent assessment

of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 351.213, 351.221.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37331

Dated: June 30, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18443 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–810]

Mechanical Transfer Presses From

Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Order in Part

AGENCY: International Trade

Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative review

and revocation of antidumping duty

administrative order in part.

SUMMARY: On March 6, 1998, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of its

antidumping duty administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on

mechanical transfer presses (MTPs)

from Japan and intent to revoke in part

with respect to respondent Aida

Engineering, Ltd. (Aida) (63 FR 11211).

This review covers two manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States and the period of

February 1, 1996 through January 31,

1997. We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments from Aida. We

received rebuttal comments from Verson

Division of Allied Products Corp., the

United Autoworkers of America, and

the United Steelworkers of America

(AFL–CIO/CLC) (petitioners). We have

not changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review. We have also determined to

revoke the order in part, with respect to

Aida.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lesley Stagliano or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–3782,

(202) 482–3020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provision effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the provisions

codified at 19 CFR part 353 (1997).

Background

On March 6, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register the preliminary

results of the review of the antidumping

duty order and intent to revoke order in

part on MTPs from Japan (63 FR 11211).

The Department has now completed this

antidumping duty administrative review

in accordance with section 751(b) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review

include MTPs currently classifiable

under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 8462.99.0035 and

8466.94.5040. The HTS numbers are

provided for convenience and for U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive of the

scope of the order.

The term mechanical transfer presses

refers to automatic metal-forming

machine tools with multiple die stations

in which the work piece is moved from

station to station by a transfer

mechanism designed as an integral part

of the press and synchronized with the

press action, whether imported as

machines or parts suitable for use solely

or principally with these machines.

These presses may be imported

assembled or unassembled. This review

does not cover certain parts and

accessories, which were determined to

be outside the scope of the order (See

‘‘Final Scope Ruling on Spare and

Replacement Parts,’’ U.S. Department of

Commerce, March 20, 1992; and ‘‘Final

Scope Ruling on the Antidumping Duty

Order on Mechanical Transfer Presses

(MTPs) from Japan: Request by

Komatsu, Ltd.,’’ U.S. Department of

Commerce, October 1, 1996).

This review covers two manufacturers

of MTPs, and the period February 1,

1996 through January 31, 1997.

Analysis of the Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results of review. We

received comments from Aida and

rebuttal comments from petitioners.

Comment 1: Aida contends that the

Department erred in excluding belowcost sales in calculating the profit rate

for constructed value. Aida states that

its below-cost sales were not outside the

ordinary course of trade according to the

general definition of ‘‘ordinary course of

trade’’ as it is defined in Section 771(15)

of the Act; therefore, they should not

have been excluded by the Department

in its calculation of constructed value.

Section 771(15) states:

The term ‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ means

the conditions and practices which, for a

reasonable time prior to the exportation of

the merchandise which is the subject of the

investigation, have been normal in the trade

under consideration with respect to

merchandise of the same class or kind. The

administering authority shall consider the

following sales and transactions, among

others, to be outside the ordinary course of

trade:

(A) Sales disregarded under section

773(b)(1)

(B) Transactions disregarded under section

773(f)(2)

Aida states that the Department and the

courts have consistently held that

below-cost sales are not per se outside

the ‘‘ordinary course of trade.’’ See, e.g.,

Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States,

918 F. Supp. 386, 402–403 (Ct. Int’l

Trade, 1996); Timken Co. v. United

States, 930 F. Supp. 621, 624–625 (Ct.

Int’l Trade, 1996); and Torrington Co. v.

United States, 984 F. Supp. 67, 75 (Ct,

Int’l Trade, 1996). Although these cases

were decided under the definition of

‘‘ordinary course of trade’’ as it existed

prior to the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA), Aida maintains that these

cases continue to be valid because this

definition was carried forward with

URAA law. Aida asserts that the second

sentence of section 771(15) only applies

to below-cost sales that have been

disregarded for purposes of normal

value comparisons under section 773(b)

of the Act.

Aida argues that there were no home

market sales ‘‘under consideration for

the determination of normal value,’’ and

no sales were disregarded under section

773(b)(1). Aida contends that the

Department based its decision to use

constructed value on section

773(a)(1)(C) when it stated that ‘‘the

particular market situation in this case,

which requires that the subject

merchandise be built to each customer’s

specifications, does not permit proper

price-to-price comparisons in either the

home market or third countries.’’ 63 FR

11213. Aida concludes that, since no

home market sales were considered or

disregarded for price comparison under

section 773(b)(1), the second sentence of

section 771(15) was inapplicable, and

that Aida’s below-cost sales were not

outside the ordinary course of trade.

Aida argues that the Department’s

discussion of the below-cost sales issue

is based on an incorrect interpretation of