Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices 22561

1The preliminary determination was negative in

this case.

least one business cycle. Under ordinary

circumstances, the most appropriate

full-year G&A period is that represented

by the latest fiscal year for which the

respondent has complete and audited

financial statements.

IRCT provided no evidence to justify

deviating from the Department’s normal

practice of using annual financial data

for G&A. As of the last day of

verification, IRCT’s 1994 audited

financial statements were not available.

Consequently, we calculated G&A

expense based on IRCT’s 1993 annual

audited financial statements.

Comment 12: Waste Water

The petitioner states that IRCT

excluded certain waste water treatment

expenses from its submitted COP. As

BIA, the petitioner suggests that the

Department include the accounts

payable amount reported in IRCT’s May

1994 Trial Balance.

The respondent asserts that it has

properly included all waste water

treatment costs in its submitted COP. It

states that the particular account noted

by the petitioner reflects costs

associated with the purchase of waste

water treatment equipment.

DOC Position

We agree with the respondent. The

respondent included all waste water

treatment expenses incurred during the

POI in its COP submission. Therefore,

no adjustment is required.

Comment 13: Insurance Proceeds

IRCT offset its submitted COP for

furfuryl alcohol by insurance proceeds

received due to an unexpected

equipment failure during the POI. IRCT

contends that it properly included

insurance revenue received for both

equipment repair costs and for the

increase in per-unit costs resulting from

the equipment failure.

The petitioner concedes that IRCT

tied part of the insurance settlement

directly to equipment repair costs and

should be allowed a partial offset for

these costs. According to the petitioner,

however, IRCT did not show how the

remaining proceeds relate to the

company’s claimed increase in per-unit

costs.

DOC Position

We agree with the respondent that the

insurance proceeds should be used to

offset IRCT’s furfuryl alcohol costs.

During verification, we found that the

insurance proceeds were paid to IRCT

for equipment failure and overhead

costs incurred during the period in

which the equipment was under repair.

Thus, these proceeds relate directly to

the equipment failure which occurred

during the POI. Due to this equipment

failure, IRCT incurred higher per-unit

production costs in addition to the cost

of repairs. Accordingly, we consider it

reasonable for IRCT to offset its

submitted COP by all proceeds received

for the insurance claim.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

entries of furfuryl alcohol from

Thailand, as defined in the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section of this notice, that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of our final

determination 1 in the Federal Register.

The Customs Service shall require a

cash deposit or posting of a bond on all

entries equal to the estimated amount by

which the FMV exceeds the USP, as

shown below. The suspension of

liquidation will remain in effect until

further notice.

Producer/manufacturer/exporter

Margin

percentage

IRCT ............................................. 5.94

All Others ...................................... 5.94

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. The ITC will make its

determination whether these imports

materially injure, or threaten injury to,

a U.S. industry within 45 days of the

publication of this notice. If the ITC

determines that material injury or threat

of material injury does not exist, the

proceeding will be terminated and all

securities posted as a result of the

suspension of liquidation will be

refunded or cancelled.

However, if the ITC determines that

such injury does exist, we will issue an

antidumping duty order directing the

Customs Service officers to assess an

antidumping duty on furfuryl alcohol

from Thailand, entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the date of suspension of

liquidation, equal to the amount by

which the foreign market value of the

merchandise exceeds the United States

price.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 735(d) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1673(d)) and 19 CFR 353.20.

Dated: May 1, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11263 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–588–807]

Industrial Belts and Components and

Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or

Uncured, From Japan; Partial

Termination and Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of partial termination

and preliminary results of antidumping

duty administrative review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

Mitsuboshi Belting Limited (MBL) and

Nakamichi America Corporation

(Nakamichi), the respondents, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) initiated an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on industrial belts and components and

parts thereof, whether cured or uncured

(hereinafter referred to as industrial

belts), from Japan. Subsequently,

Nakamichi made a timely request to

withdraw its request for an

administrative review, and since there

were no other requests for review of

Nakamichi’s exports to the United

States, the Department is terminating its

1993/94 administrative review of

Nakamichi. Therefore, this review

covers one manufacturer/exporter, MBL,

during the period June 1, 1993, through

May 31, 1994.

As a result of this review, the

Department has preliminarily

determined to assess antidumping

duties for MBL based upon the best

information otherwise available (BIA).

Interested parties are invited to

comment on the preliminary results of

this administrative review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Vannatta in the Office of

Antidumping Compliance; Import

Administration; International Trade

Administration; 14th & Constitution

Avenue, N.W.; U.S. Department of

Commerce; Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone number (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are references
22562 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices

to the provisions as they existed on

December 31, 1994.

Background

On June 14, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 25314) the antidumping order on

industrial belts from Japan. On June 16,

1994, and June 30, 1994, Nakamichi and

MBL, respectively, requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of the period June 1, 1993,

through May 31, 1994. The Department

published a notice of initiation of the

antidumping administrative review on

July 15, 1994 (59 FR 36160). The

Department is now conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

On September 2, 1994, the

Department received a timely request

from Nakamichi to withdraw its request

for an administrative review. There

were no other requests from interested

parties for an administrative review of

Nakamichi. Therefore, with respect to

Nakamichi, the Department is

terminating this administrative review,

in part, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(5).

On July 19, 1994, the Department

presented its questionnaire to the

counsel for MBL requesting information

concerning MBL’s U.S. and home

market sales made during the period of

review. MBL did not respond to the

Department’s request for information.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are

shipments of industrial belts and

components and parts thereof, whether

cured or uncured, from Japan. These

products include V-belts, synchronous

belts, and other industrial belts, in part

or wholly of rubber or plastic, and

containing textile fiber (including glass

fiber) or steel wire, cord or strand, and

whether in endless (i.e., closed loops)

belts, or in belting in lengths or links.

This review excludes conveyor belts

and automotive belts, as well as front

engine drive belts found on equipment

powered by internal combustion

engines, including trucks, tractors,

buses, and lift trucks.

During the period of review, the

merchandise was classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)

subheadings 3926.90.55, 3926.90.56,

3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60,

4010.10.10, 4010.10.50, 4010.91.11,

4010.91.15, 4010.91.19, 4010.91.50,

4010.99.11, 4010.99.15, 4010.99.19,

4010.99.50, 5910.00.10, 5910.00.90, and

7326.20.00. The HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

For these preliminary results, this

review covers sales and entries made

during the period of review from one

Japanese manufacturer and exporter of

industrial belts to the United States,

Mitsuboshi Belting Limited.

Best Information Available

In accordance with section 776(c) of

the Tariff Act, the Department has

preliminarily determined that the use of

BIA is appropriate for MBL. In

determining what to use as BIA, 19 CFR

353.37(b) provides that the Department

may take into account whether a party

fails to provide requested information.

When a company fails to provide the

information requested in a timely

manner, or otherwise significantly

impedes the Department’s review, the

Department considers that company to

be uncooperative, and, in accordance

with its two-tier BIA methodology,

generally assigns to that company the

higher of (1) the highest rate for any

company for the same class or kind of

merchandise from any previous review

or the original investigation, or (2) the

highest rate for a responding firm with

shipments of the same class or kind of

merchandise during the current review

period (Antifriction Bearings (Other

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and

Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic

of Germany, et al; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 56 FR 31692, 31704–05 (July 11,

1991); Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v.

United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir.

1993)).

Because MBL did not respond to the

Department’s request for information,

the Department has used the rate from

the less-than-fair-value investigation to

establish MBL’s margin in accordance

with the first tier of the Department’s

two-tier BIA methodology. This rate is

93.16 percent.

Preliminary Results of Review

The Department preliminarily

determines that MBL’s margin for this

administrative review is 93.16 percent.

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure and/or an administrative

protective order within five days of the

date of publication of this notice.

Interested parties may also request a

public hearing within 10 days of the

date of publication of this notice. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44

days after the date of publication, or the

first workday thereafter. Case briefs and/

or written comments may be submitted

to the Department not later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

those comments, may be filed with the

Department not later than 37 days after

the date of publication. The Department

will include in its publication of the

final results of administrative review an

analysis of the issues raised in any

written comments or at the hearing.

Upon completion of the final results

of this administrative review, the

Department will determine, and the U.S.

Customs Service will assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

the United States price and the foreign

market value may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of industrial belts from Japan, entered

for consumption, or withdrawn from

warehouse for consumption, on or after

its publication date, as provided by

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

(1) The cash deposit rate for MBL will

be that established in the final results of

this administrative review;

(2) For subject merchandise exported

by manufacturers or exporters not

covered in this review but covered in

previous reviews or in the original lessthan-fair-value investigation, a cash

deposit based upon the most recently

published rate in a final result or

determination for which the

manufacturer or exporter received a

company-specific rate;

(3) For subject merchandise exported

by an exporter not covered in this

review, a prior review, or the original

investigation, but where the

manufacturer of the merchandise has

been covered by this or a prior final

result or determination, a cash deposit

based upon the most recently published

company-specific rate for that

manufacturer; and

(4) For merchandise exported by all

other manufacturers and exporters who

are not covered by this or any previous

administrative review conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will

be the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in

the less-than-fair-value investigation,

93.16 percent.

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until the publication of the final results

of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to all importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

353.26 to file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Notices 22563

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during the 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 Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22(c)(5).

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11258 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[C–549–802]

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From

Thailand; Preliminary Results of a

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on ball

bearings and parts thereof from

Thailand. We preliminarily determine

the total bounty or grant to be 4.29

percent ad valorem for all companies for

the period January 1, 1992, through

December 31, 1992. If the final results

remain the same as these preliminary

results of administrative review, we will

instruct U.S. Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as indicated

above. We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martina Tkadlec or Kelly Parkhill,

Office of Countervailing Compliance,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 3, 1989, the Department

published in the Federal Register (54

FR 19130) the countervailing duty order

on ball bearings and parts thereof from

Thailand. On April 28, 1993, the

Department published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request Administrative Review’’ (58 FR

25802) of this countervailing duty order.

On May 28, 1993, Torrington Company,

the petitioner, requested an

administrative review of the order. On

May 28, 1993, Pelmec Thai Ltd.

(Pelmec) and NMB Thai Ltd. (NMB

Thai), the respondent companies in

prior reviews also requested an

administrative review.

On June 25, 1993 (58 FR 34414), we

initiated the review, covering the period

January 1, 1992, through December 31,

1992. The review covers nine programs

and three related producers/exporters,

NMB Thai, Pelmec, and NMB Hi-Tech

Bearings Ltd. (NMB Hi-Tech), which are

wholly owned by Minebea, Co., Ltd. of

Japan.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act). Unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

statute and to the Department’s

regulations are in reference to the

provisions as they existed on December

31, 1994.

Scope of Review

Imports covered by this review are

ball bearings and parts thereof. Such

merchandise is described in detail in

Appendix A to this notice. The

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers listed in Appendix A are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Calculation Methodology

In the first administrative review,

respondents claimed that the F.O.B.

value of the subject merchandise

entering the United States is greater

than the F.O.B. price charged by the

companies in Thailand (57 FR 26646;

June 15, 1992). They explained that this

discrepancy is due to a mark-up charged

by the parent company, located in a

third country, through which the

merchandise is invoiced. However, the

subject merchandise is shipped directly

from Thailand to the United States and

is not transshipped, combined with

other merchandise, or repackaged with

other merchandise. In other words, for

each shipment of subject merchandise,

there are two invoices and two

corresponding F.O.B. export prices: (1)

The F.O.B. export price at which the

subject merchandise leaves Thailand,

and on which subsidies from the Royal

Thai Government (RTG) are earned by

the companies, and upon which the

subsidy rate is calculated; and (2) the

F.O.B. export price which includes the

parent company mark-up, and which is

listed on the invoice accompanying the

subject merchandise as it enters the

United States, and upon which the cash

deposits are collected and the

countervailing duty is assessed.

Respondents argued that the calculated

ad valorem rate should be adjusted by

the ratio of the export value from

Thailand to the export value charged by

the parent company to the U.S.

customer so that the amount of

countervailing duties collected would

reflect the amount of subsidies

bestowed. The Department agreed and

made this adjustment in the first and

second administrative reviews (57 FR

26646; June 15, 1992; and 58 FR 36392;

July 7, 1993).

In the present review, we again

verified on a transaction-specific basis

the direct correlation between the

invoice which reflect the F.O.B. price on

which the subsidies are earned and the

invoice which reflects the marked-up

price that accompanies each shipment

as it enters the United States. Since the

mark-up is not part of the export value

upon which the respondents earn

bounties or grants, the Department has

followed the methodology adopted in

the first and second administrative

reviews, and calculated the ad valorem

rate as a percentage of the original

export value from Thailand and then

multiplied this rate by the adjustment

ratio—the original export value from

Thailand divided by the marked-up

value of the goods entering the United

States.

We did not calculate a separate rate

for each company because NMB Thai,

Pelmec, and NMB Hi-Tech are wholly

owned by one parent company, and are

therefore related. As a result of this

relationship, we considered the three

companies as one corporate entity in

our calculations. We calculated the

bounty or grant by first totalling the

benefits received by the three

companies for each program used.

Dividing these sums by total Thai export

value for the three companies, we

calculated the adjusted bounty or grant

for each program used. As described

above, we adjusted these rates by

multiplying them by the ratio of the

original export price from Thailand to

the marked-up price of the goods

entering the United States. Finally, we

summed the adjusted bounty or grant

for each program, to arrive at the total

country-wide bounty or grant.