Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices 62387

prepared by the Treasury Department

(Treasury). In addition, in Timken the

CIT remanded the same final results to

the Department to use the verified perunit export department expenses as best

information available when calculating

the adjustment to exporter’s sales price

(ESP) for Koyo’s export selling

expenses.

In Koyo Cost the CIT allowed Timken

to submit supplemental sales-below-cost

information and directed the

Department to consider the

supplemental information in order to

determine whether the dumping

margins for the April 1, 1978 to March

31, 1979 period should be calculated

without reference to the investigation of

below-cost-of-production sales. That

allegation, and the Department’s finding

of sales below the cost of production,

were not relevant to time periods prior

to April 1, 1978. Consequently, no

investigation of sales made below the

cost of production was conducted for

those periods.

The Department submitted its

remanded results for NSK pursuant to

NSK and Timken to the CIT in August

1992. Results for Koyo pursuant to

KCUSA, Timken, and Koyo Cost were

submitted to the CIT in October 1992.

The CIT affirmed those results in their

entirety on March 4, 1993 (Slip Op. 93–

28). Koyo, NSK, and Timken appealed

various issues in those orders to the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit). In

its ruling of March 28, 1994 (Koyo Seiko

Co., Ltd. and Koyo Corporation USA. v.

United States (93–1310, 1341), and NSK

Ltd. And NSK Corporation v. United

States (93–1311), (CAFC decision)), the

Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s

decision in Koyo Cost to allow the

Department to conduct an investigation

of sales made below the cost of

production by Koyo. However, the

Federal Circuit reversed the decision of

the CIT in KCUSA and NSK to liquidate

TRB entries made by Koyo between

April 1, 1974 and September 30, 1977,

and TRB entries made by NSK between

June 6, 1974 and March 31, 1978,

according to Treasury master lists.

Pursuant to the CAFC decision, the CIT

ordered a redetermination of the final

dumping margins for 1974–1978 TRB

entries (Koyo Seiko Co., v. United States

and NSK Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op.

94–75 (May 10, 1994) (Koyo/NSK)). The

Koyo/NSK order stipulated that the

margins be determined based upon the

complete record of the administration

review conducted by the Department

and on the CIT’s prior rulings in

KCUSA, NSK, and Timken. No other

issues were raised before the Federal

Circuit.

The Department submitted its results

pursuant to Koyo/NSK on July 18, 1994.

On June 15, 1995, the CIT issued its

decision in Koyo remanding those

results to the Department to correct two

computer programming errors alleged

by Timken and affirming the

redetermination in all other respects.

The margin calculations on entries

made by NSK from April 1, 1978,

through July 31, 1980, and by Koyo from

October 1, 1977, through March 31,

1979, were not challenged in these

actions, and were affirmed by the CIT.

Consequently, those calculations remain

unchanged from the Department’s

August 1992 and October 1992

remanded results.

The Department has addressed the

two programming errors identified by

the CIT in Koyo. Based upon an

examination of the record in the final

results of review we determined that

there was no programming or clerical

error regarding model matching. The

Department reviewed and emended the

programming error regarding exchange

rates. We disclosed the results to Koyo

and Timken consistent with 19 CFR

353.28. We received no comments on

our results from either party. The

Department is therefore amending the

final results of the administrative review

of the antidumping finding on tapered

roller bearings, four inches or less in

outside diameter, and certain

components thereof from Japan to

reflect the amended margins calculated

for Koyo and NSK in the Department’s

redetermination on remand, and

affirmed by the CIT.

The Department will issue liquidation

instructions to the Customs Service

based on the following amended

margins:

Firm Period Percent margin

Koyo .......................................................... 04/01/1974 to 07/31/1976 ............................................................................................ 20.56

08/01/1976 to 09/30/1977 ............................................................................................ 5.99

10/01/1977 to 93/31/1978 ............................................................................................ 24.64

04/01/1978 to 03/31/1979 ............................................................................................ 17.96

NSK ........................................................... 06/06/1974 to 06/30/1976 ............................................................................................ 17.42

07/01/1976 to 07/31/1977 ............................................................................................ 17.42

08/01/1977 to 03/31/1978 ............................................................................................ 18.63

04/01/1978 to 07/31/1978 ............................................................................................ 39.60

08/01/1978 to 07/31/1979 ............................................................................................ 19.75

08/01/1979 to 07/31/1980 ............................................................................................ 9.82

Dated: November 22, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–29727 Filed 12–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

[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
62388 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices

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 alternatelyassembled 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 taxneutral 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Notices 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:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Hitachi ........................................... 112.68

Izumi ............................................. 0.52

Pulton ............................................ 10.00

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 lessthan-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 FederalMogul 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