[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62387-62389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29728]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-028]


Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from the American Chain Association, 
the petitioner in this proceeding, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping 
finding on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan. The review 
covers four manufacturers/exporters of this merchandise to the United 
States during the period of April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993.
    We gave interested parties the opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have revised the results from those presented in our preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Thompson or Donna Berg, Office of 
Antidumping Investigations, Import 

[[Page 62388]]
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-3003 or (202) 482-0114, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 23, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the preliminary results of its 1992-1993 administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from 
Japan (60 FR 43769). The four manufacturers/exporters reviewed are 
Izumi Chain Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi), R.K. Excel (Excel), 
Hitachi Metals Techno Ltd. (Hitachi), and Pulton Chain Co. Ltd. 
(Pulton). Pulton submitted comments on August 30, 1995. On September 
18, 1995, the petitioner submitted its case brief. Excel submitted 
rebuttal comments on September 25, 1995. The Department has now 
conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of 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 
transmission and/or conveyance. Such chain consists of a series of 
alternately-assembled roller links and pin links in which the pins 
articulate inside 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 conveyer 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. HTSUS item numbers 
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

    We compared the United States price (USP) to the foreign market 
value (FMV), as specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign 
Market Value'' sections of this notice.

United States Price

    We calculated USP according to the methodology described in our 
preliminary results, except for the adjustment of value-added taxes 
(VAT), as described below.
    In light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Federal Mogul v. 
United States, CAFC No. 94-1097, the Department has changed its 
treatment of home market consumption taxes. Where merchandise exported 
to the United States is exempt from the consumption tax, the Department 
will add to the U.S. price the absolute amount of such taxes charged on 
the comparison sales in the home market. This is the same methodology 
that the Department adopted following the decision of the Federal 
Circuit in Zenith v. United States, 988 F. 2d 1573, 1582 (1993), and 
which was suggested by that court in footnote 4 of its decision. The 
Court of International Trade (CIT) overturned this methodology in 
Federal Mogul v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (1993), and the 
Department acquiesced in the CIT's decision. The Department then 
followed the CIT's preferred methodology, which was to calculate the 
tax to be added to U.S. price by multiplying the adjusted U.S. price by 
the foreign market tax rate; the Department made adjustments to this 
amount so that the tax adjustment would not alter a ``zero'' pre-tax 
dumping assessment.
    The foreign exporters in the Federal Mogul case, however, appealed 
that decision to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the CIT and held 
that the statute did not preclude Commerce from using the ``Zenith 
footnote 4'' methodology to calculate tax-neutral dumping assessments 
(i.e., assessments that are unaffected by the existence or amount of 
home market consumption taxes). Moreover, the Federal Circuit 
recognized that certain international agreements of the United States, 
in particular the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the 
Tokyo Round Antidumping Code, required the calculation of tax-neutral 
dumping assessments. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the CIT 
with instructions to direct Commerce to determine which tax methodology 
it will employ.
    The Department has determined that the ``Zenith footnote 4'' 
methodology should be used. First, as the Department has explained in 
numerous administrative determinations and court filings over the past 
decade, and as the Federal Circuit has now recognized, Article VI of 
the GATT and Article 2 of the Tokyo Round Antidumping Code required 
that dumping assessments be tax-neutral. This requirement continues 
under the new Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Second, the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act (URAA) explicitly amended the antidumping law to remove consumption 
taxes from the home market price and to eliminate the addition of taxes 
to U.S. price, so that no consumption tax is included in the price in 
either market. The Statement of Administrative Action (p. 159) 
explicitly states that this change was intended to result in tax 
neutrality.
    While the ``Zenith footnote 4'' methodology is slightly different 
from the URAA methodology, in that section 772(d)(1)(C) of the pre-URAA 
law required that the tax be added to United States price rather than 
subtracted from home market price, it does result in tax-neutral duty 
assessments. In sum, the Department has elected to treat consumption 
taxes in a manner consistent with its longstanding policy of tax-
neutrality and with the GATT.

Foreign Market Value

    With the exception noted above for VAT, we calculated FMV according 
to the methodology described in our preliminary results.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a). 
All currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the 
Federal Reserve Bank.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Consumption Tax Adjustment

    The petitioner argues that the Department erred with respect to its 
consumption tax (VAT) calculations for Excel's home market sales. 
Specifically, the petitioner claims that the Department incorrectly 
excluded U.S. commissions from its calculation of the hypothetical VAT 
amount applicable to U.S. selling expenses. Insofar as the 

[[Page 62389]]
VAT on expenses is deducted from FMV, the petitioner argues that the 
alleged error has the effect of lowering FMV and thereby improperly 
decreasing Excel's margin.
    Excel contends that it would be incorrect to include commissions in 
the calculation of U.S. expenses because commissions were not included 
in the calculation of the VAT amount that was added to U.S. price. If 
the Department were to include commissions in the equation for U.S. 
expenses, Excel argues that the Department should also include 
commissions in the calculation of the VAT amount that is added to U.S. 
price.

DOC Position

    In accordance with the CAFC decision (see the ``United States 
Price'' section of this notice), the Department has changed its VAT 
calculation methodology. Therefore, the comments made by the petitioner 
and Excel are moot.

Comment 2: Pulton's Dumping Margin

    Pulton states that the Department's preliminary results correctly 
indicated that Pulton reported no U.S. sales during this review period. 
However, Pulton contends that the Department incorrectly cited the 
dumping margin from the most recent review when Pulton had U.S. sales. 
Instead of the rate of 0.01 percent published by the Department, Pulton 
contends the rate should be 0.00 percent (see 58 FR 52264, 52267 
(October 7, 1993)).

DOC Position

    We agree with Pulton and have corrected this inadvertent error for 
these final results.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine 
that the following weighted-average margins exist for the April 1, 1992 
through March 31, 1993 period:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi......................................................   \1\12.68
Izumi........................................................       0.52
Pulton.......................................................    \1\0.00
Excel........................................................       0.10
All Others...................................................      15.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No sales during the period. Rate is from the last period in which    
  there were sales.                                                     

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of these final results of administrative review, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit 
rates for Pulton and Excel will be zero because the margins for these 
firms are zero or de minimus. The cash deposit rates for Izumi and 
Hitachi will be 0.52 and 12.68 percent, respectively; (2) for 
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this 
review but covered in previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 
the rate published in the most recent final results or determination 
for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific 
rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, earlier 
review, or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash 
deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the 
merchandise in the final results of this review, earlier reviews, or 
the LTFV investigation, whichever is the most recent; (4) if neither 
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any 
previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will 
be the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first review conducted 
by the Department in which a ``new shipper'' rate was established, as 
discussed below.
    On May 25, 1993, the CIT in Floral Trade Council v. United States, 
822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and Federal-Mogul Corporation and the 
Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993), 
decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company 
it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department 
has determined that in order to implement these decisions, it is 
appropriate to reinstate the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV 
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by 
antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping 
findings, unless we are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from 
the Treasury LTFV investigation, the Department has determined that it 
is appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the 
first final results of administrative review published by the 
Department (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors 
or as a result of litigation) as the ``all others'' rate for the 
purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current and future 
administrative reviews.
    Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping finding, and 
we are unable to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury 
LTFV investigation, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of this 
review would normally be the ``new shipper'' rate established in the 
first notice of final results of administrative review published by the 
Department (46 FR 44488, September 4, 1981). However, a ``new shipper'' 
rate was not established in that notice. Therefore, the ``all others'' 
rate of 15.92 percent comes from Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, from 
Japan, Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 
48 FR 51801 (November 14, 1983), the first review conducted by the 
Department in which a ``new shipper'' rate was established.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
    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.

    Dated: November 29, 1995
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-29728 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P