28168 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

entries. Individual differences between

CEP and NV may vary from the

percentage stated above. Upon

completion of this review, the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of certain fresh

cut flowers from Mexico 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withdrawn from warehouse, for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 the reviewed company will be

the rate established in the final results

of this review; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in these reviews but

covered in the original LTFV

investigation or previous review, the

cash deposit 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 or a previous

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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of the

merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall

be 18.20 percent, the rate established in

the LTFV investigation.

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also 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 751(d)(1) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 353.22 and

353.25.

Dated: May 23, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13964 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P–M

[A–588–028]

Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From

Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Intent to Revoke Order (in

Part)

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping administrative review and

intent to revoke order (in part).

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

the American Chain Association (ACA),

petitioner in this proceeding, Izumi

Chain Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi),

Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd (Daido), and

Enuma Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Enuma),

respondents in this proceeding, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping finding on roller chain,

other than bicycle, from Japan. This

review covers seven manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States during the April 1,

1994 through March 31, 1995 period of

review (POR).

While we have preliminarily

determined that four manufacturers/

exporters reviewed made sales below

normal value (NV) during the POR, we

determined the weighted-average

dumping margin for three of the four

manufacturers/exporters to be de

minimis. We have also preliminarily

determined that the remaining three

manufacturers/exporters reviewed had

no sales or shipments of the subject

merchandise during the POR. If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service (Customs) to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the NV.

In accordance with section 353.25 of

the Department’s regulations, we intend

to revoke the antidumping duty finding

with respect to Daido and Enuma

because we have reason to believe that

Daido and Enuma have sold the subject

merchandise at not less than NV for a

period of at least three consecutive years

and are not likely to sell the subject

merchandise at less than NV in the

future. Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack

K. Dulberger, Matt Blaskovich, Ron

Trentham, or Joseph Hanley, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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 the

current regulations, as amended by the

interim regulations published in the

Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60

FR 225130).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty finding on roller

chain, other than bicycle, from Japan on

April 12, 1973 (38 FR 9926). The

Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping finding for the 1994–95

review period on April 4, 1995 (60 FR

17052). On April 25, 1995, petitioner

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty finding on roller

chain, other than bicycle, from Japan for

seven manufacturers/exporters (Daido,

Enuma, Izumi, Hitachi Metals Techno

Ltd. (Hitachi), Pulton Chain Co., Ltd.

(Pulton), Peer Chain Company (Peer),

and R.K. Excel). Additionally, on April

28, 1995, Izumi, Daido, and Enuma also

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of their sales

of the subject merchandise during the

POR. In its April 28, 1995 letter, Daido

and Enuma requested partial revocation

of the finding pursuant to § 353.25(b) of

the Department’s regulations. We

initiated the review on May 15, 1995,

(60 FR 25885).

Hitachi, Pulton, and Peer reported,

and the Department verified through

Customs, that they had no shipments/

sales of the subject merchandise during

the POR.

The Department extended the time

limits for the deadlines for the

preliminary and final results of review

because of the additional time required

for the development of a new

questionnaire that accorded with

URAA. See Antidumping Duty
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28169

Administrative Reviews; Time Limits, 60

FR 56141 (November 7, 1995). As a

result of the federal government 28-day

total shutdown, these deadlines were

further extended. The Department is

conducting this administrative review

in accordance with section 751 of the

Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered this administrative

review are 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. Such

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. HTSUS item numbers are

provided for convenience and Customs

purposes. The written description

remains dispositive.

Verification

In accordance with § 353.25(c)(2)(ii)

of the Department’s regulations, we

verified information provided by Daido

and Enuma using standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the manufacturer’s facilities, the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records, and selection of

original documentation containing

relevant information. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

Use of Facts Available

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 or manner requested, significantly

impedes a determination under the

antidumping statute, or provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified, the Department shall use

facts otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination. Because

Izumi, Daido, and Enuma failed or

refused to submit certain information

that the Department had requested, we

must use facts otherwise available for all

three respondents.

A large portion of Izumi’s home

market (HM) sales were to an affiliated

reseller. We have concluded that the

extremely small percentage of Izumi’s

remaining HM sales to unaffiliated

customers do not provide a sufficient

factual basis to determine whether sales

to the affiliated reseller were made at

arm’s-length prices. See Television

Receivers, Monochrome and Color, from

Japan; Final, Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 52 FR

8940, 8943 (March 20, 1987), and

Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware

from the Republic of Korea; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 8253

(March 4, 1996). Further, Izumi did not

submit information concerning home

market downstream sales (sales by the

affiliated customer to unaffiliated

customers).

Daido and Enuma’s U.S. sales

subsidiary, Daido Corporation, incurred

further processing costs on certain

constructed export price (CEP) sales of

attachment-equipped roller chain. Our

analysis of the transfer prices of the

attachments submitted by Daido

Corporation for use in the calculation of

total further processing costs indicates

that the submitted transfer prices do not

consistently reflect the actual material

costs of the attachments. Further, Daido

Corporation used a cost allocation

methodology which, upon analysis, we

determined was in a form which did not

provide a reliable indication of their

actual further processing costs.

For certain U.S. sales where there

were no contemporaneous sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market, Daido and Enuma also failed to

provide the Department with model

match and difference in merchandise

adjustment information necessary to

calculate a dumping margin. Finally, as

a result of findings at verification, we

determined that Daido and Enuma

failed to report a certain number of CEP

sales.

However, because of the overall

integrity of Daido and Enuma’s

questionnaire responses, and because

the overall volume of sales affected by

these deficiencies is small, we have

determined to base these preliminary

results for these respondents on a

calculated rate rather than a rate based

entirely on the facts available. The use

of facts available is necessary to

calculate a dumping margin for those

U.S. sales which lack the proper

information necessary to calculate a

dumping margin.

As facts otherwise available we are

assigning to Enuma the highest

transaction margin calculated on a U.S.

sale made by Enuma in this review.

Because no non-aberrational dumping

margins were found on any U.S. sales

made by Daido during the period of

review, use of Daido’s non-aberrational

transaction margin data would not

supply the adverse inference warranted

in this case. Therefore, as facts

otherwise available we are assigning to

Daido the highest rate calculated in this

review for another company (3.97

percent). We limited application of

these rates to the particular transactions

involved.

Examination of the circumstances

surrounding Izumi’s failure to provide

information on downstream sales made

in the home market by its affiliated

reseller indicates that Izumi acted to the

best of its ability to comply with the

Department’s requests for information.

Thus, the Department has determined

that, in selecting among the facts

otherwise available to Izumi, an adverse

inference is not warranted in this case.

As facts otherwise available, we are

using Izumi’s reported constructed

value as the basis for NV to calculate

dumping margins on U.S. sales that

would have been compared to NV based

on downstream sales had such

information been reported.

United States Price

In calculating USP for R.K. Excel,

Daido, Enuma, and Izumi we used

export price (EP), as defined in section

772(a) of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold to unaffiliated

U.S. purchasers prior to date of

importation. Additionally, we treated

certain U.S. sales by Daido and Enuma

as CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of

the Act, when the subject merchandise

was first sold to unrelated purchasers

after import into the United States. EP

sales were based on packed, FOB

Japanese port, ex-go-down Japanese port

price, or CIF U.S. port prices to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for inland freight from the

warehouse, inland insurance, brokerage

and handling, international freight,

marine insurance, in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act, because these

expenses were incident to bringing the

subject merchandise from the original
28170 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

place of shipment in the exporting

country to the place of delivery in the

United States.

We based CEP on packed, FOB

warehouse or delivered price to

unrelated purchasers in the United

States. Pursuant to section 772(c) and

(d) of the Act, the Department made

adjustments, where applicable, for

international freight, brokerage and

handling, credit, U.S. inland freight,

commissions, and indirect selling

expenses.

Normal Value

A. Viability

In order to determine whether there

was sufficient volume of sales in the

home market (HM) to serve as a viable

basis for calculating NV, we compared

the volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product, for each of the

companies subject to this review, to the

volume of U.S. sales of the subject

merchandise, in accordance with

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because the

aggregate volume of HM sales of the

foreign like product for each of the

companies subject to this review was

greater than five percent of its aggregate

volume of U.S. sales for the subject

merchandise, we determined that the

HM provides a viable basis for

calculating NV for those companies

subject to this review, pursuant to

section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.

B. Constructed Value

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated constructed value

(CV) for Izumi based on its cost of

materials and fabrication employed in

producing the subject merchandise,

SG&A, and profit incurred and realized

in connection with the production and

sale of the foreign like product, and U.S.

packing costs. We used the costs of

materials and fabrication, as reported in

the CV portion of Izumi’s questionnaire

response. We calculated Izumi’s indirect

selling and credit expenses based on the

information reported in the HM sales

portion of Izumi’s questionnaire

response. We used the U.S. packing

costs as reported in the U.S. sales

portion of Izumi’s questionnaire

response. We calculated actual profit by

using the information provided in

Izumi’s 1994 fiscal year financial

statements for its chain division.

C. Price-to-Price Comparisons

For price-to-price comparisons, we

based NV on the price which the foreign

like product is first sold for

consumption in the exporting country,

in the usual commercial quantities, in

the ordinary course of trade, and to the

extent practicable, at the same level of

trade as the U.S. sale, as defined by

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We

based NV for all companies subject to

this review, on packed, delivered prices

to unaffiliated purchasers in the HM.

We made adjustments, where

applicable, in accordance with section

773(a)(6) of the Act, for all companies

subject to this review. We made

deductions from NV for brokerage,

inland freight, insurance and discounts.

Where applicable, we made adjustments

for differences in packing, credit,

advertising, warranty, and technical

service expenses. We made adjustments,

where appropriate, for physical

differences in merchandise in

accordance with 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the

Act.

Where there were no sales

commissions paid in the HM, we offset

U.S. commissions with the weighted

average of home market indirect selling

expenses up to the amount of the

commissions paid on U.S. sales in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1).

D. Level of Trade/CEP Offset

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, at 829–831, to the

extent possible, the Department will

calculate NV based on sales at the same

level of trade as the U.S. sale. When the

Department is unable to find sale(s) in

the comparison market at the same level

of trade as sale(s) in the U.S., the

Department may compare sales in the

U.S. and foreign markets at a different

level of trade.

In accordance with section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if we compare a

U.S. sale at one level of trade to NV

sales at a different level of trade, the

Department will adjust the NV to

account for the difference in level of

trade if two conditions are met. First,

there must be differences between the

actual selling functions performed by

the seller at the level of trade of the U.S.

sale and at the level of trade of the NV

sale. Second, the differences must affect

price comparability as evidenced by a

pattern of consistent price differences

between sales at different levels of trade

in the market in which NV is

determined. When CEP is applicable,

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

establishes the procedures for making a

CEP offset when (1) NV is at a different

level of trade, and (2) the data available

do not provide an appropriate basis for

a level of trade adjustment from the U.S.

sale. Also, in accordance with section

773(a)(7)(B), to qualify for a CEP offset,

the level of trade in the HM must also

constitute a more advanced stage of

distribution than the level of trade of the

CEP sale.

Daido and Enuma reported one level

of trade and one channel of distribution

in the HM (direct to end users). Daido

and Enuma made CEP and EP sales to

the U.S. market and claimed either a

level of trade adjustment for its CEP

sales, or a CEP offset. The level of trade

of the U.S. sales is determined by the

adjusted price of the CEP sale.

Daido and Enuma’s questionnaire

responses indicate a difference between

the actual selling functions performed

by Daido and Enuma at the level of

trade of the CEP sale and at the level of

trade of the HM sale. The adjusted CEP

sales do not reflect the selling functions

to end users, such as developing a

customer base, taking sales orders,

technical consultations, maintaining

sales and billing records, product

packing and shipping, and inventory

maintenance. The HM sales reflect these

additional selling functions performed

for direct sales to end users. Therefore,

the selling functions performed for CEP

sales are sufficiently different than for

HM sales to consider such sales to be at

different levels of trade.

Because we compared these CEP sales

to HM sales at a different level of trade,

we examined whether a level of trade

adjustment may be appropriate. In this

case, Daido and Enuma only sold at one

level of trade in the HM; therefore, there

is no basis upon which Daido and

Enuma has demonstrated a consistent

pattern of price differences between

levels of trade. Further, we do not have

information which would allow us to

examine pricing patterns on Daido and

Enuma’s sales of other products, and

there are no other respondents or other

record information on which such

analysis could be based.

Because the data available do not

provide an appropriate basis for making

a level of trade adjustment, but the level

of trade in the HM is a more advanced

state of distribution than the level of

trade of the CEP sale, a CEP offset, as

requested by Daido and Enuma, is

appropriate. We have applied the CEP

offset to NV.

We based the CEP offset amount on

the amount of the HM indirect selling

expenses. We limited the HM indirect

selling expense deduction by the

amount of the indirect selling expenses

incurred on sales to the U.S., in

accordance with section 772(d)(1)(D).

Non-shippers

Hitachi, Pulton, and Peer stated that

they did not have shipments during the

POR, and we confirmed this with the

U.S. Customs Service. Therefore, we are
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28171

treating them as non-shippers for this

review, and are rescinding this review

with respect to these companies. See

Proposed Rule, § 351.213(d)(3), (61 FR

7365). The cash deposit rates for these

firms will continue to be the rates

established in the most recently

completed final determination, or the

all-others rate if the respondent was

never assigned its own rate in a

previous segment of this proceeding.

Intent To Revoke

Daido and Enuma requested, pursuant

to 19 CFR 353.25(b), revocation of the

order with respect to their sales of the

merchandise in question and submitted

the certification required by 19 CFR

353.25(b)(1). In addition, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2)(iii), Daido and

Enuma have agreed in writing to their

immediate reinstatement in the order, as

long as any producer or reseller is

subject to the order, if the Department

concludes under 19 CFR 353.22(f) that

Daido and Enuma, subsequent to

revocation, sold merchandise at less

than NV. Based on the preliminary

results in this review and the two

preceding reviews, Daido and Enuma

have demonstrated three consecutive

years of sales at not less than NV. If the

final results of this and the two

preceding reviews demonstrate that

Daido and Enuma sold the merchandise

at not less than NV, and if the

Department determines that it is not

likely that Daido and Enuma will sell

the subject merchandise at less than NV

in the future, we intend to revoke the

order with respect to merchandise

produced and exported by Daido and

Enuma.

Preliminary Results

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

Izumi ............................... 3.97

R.K. Excel ...................... 0.09

Daido .............................. 0.14

Enuma ............................ 0.09

All Others ....................... 15.92

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice and 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 working day thereafter. Interested

parties may submit case briefs and/or

written comments no later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal

briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited issues raised in such

briefs or comments, may be filed no

later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

the administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such written

comments or at the hearing, within 180

days from the issuance of these

preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between USP and

NV may vary from the percentages

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

Customs. 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.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of roller chain, other than bicycle, from

Japan entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

publication date of the final results of

these administrative reviews, as

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed companies will be those rates

outlined above, except for Daido and

Enuma, which, because their weightedaverage margins were de minimis, will

be zero percent; (2) for merchandise

exported by manufacturers or exporters

not covered in these reviews but

covered in the original LTFV

investigation or a previous review, the

cash deposit will continue to be the

most recent rate published in the final

determination or final results for which

the manufacturer or exporter received a

company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in these reviews,

or the original investigation, but the

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate

will be that established for the

manufacturer of the merchandise in the

final results of these reviews, or the

LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a

firm covered in these or any previous

reviews, the cash deposit rate will 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 antidumping finding

administrative review (48 FR 51801,

November 14, 1983).

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 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 the 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.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13963 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–588–028]

Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From

Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews.

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the American Chain Association (ACA),

petitioner in this proceeding, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) has conducted

administrative reviews of the

antidumping finding on roller chain,

other than bicycle, from Japan. The

reviews cover two manufacturers/

exporters of the subject merchandise to

the United States during the period

April 1, 1992 through March 31, 1993,

and six manufacturers/ exporters of this

merchandise to the United States during

the period April 1, 1993 through March

31, 1994. The reviews indicate the

existence of dumping margins for

certain firms during the relevant

periods.

If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of

administrative reviews, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to

assess antidumping duties equal to the

difference between the United States

price (USP) and the foreign market

value (FMV).

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit argument in this