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
28172 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

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

Dulberger, Matt Blaskovich, Ron

Trentham or Joseph Hanley, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone (202) 482–5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 27, 1993, in response to a

timely request from petitioner, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of review for the period April

1, 1992 through March 31, 1993, for

Daido Kogyo, Ltd. (Daido), Enuma

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

Metals Techno Ltd. (Hitachi), Izumi

Chain Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi),

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

R.K. Excel. The reviews for Hitachi,

Izumi, Pulton and R.K. Excel were

conducted separately. On December 6,

1995, the Department published in the

Federal Register (60 FR 62387), the final

results of the 1992–93 administrative

review of the antidumping finding on

roller chain, other than bicycle, from

Japan (38 FR 9226, April 12, 1973) for

Hitachi, Izumi, Pulton and R.K. Excel.

On May 15, 1994, in response to a

timely request from petitioner, the

Department published a notice of

initiation of review for the period April

1, 1993 through March 31, 1994 for the

following six companies: Daido, Enuma,

Hitachi, Izumi, Pulton, and R.K. Excel.

Hitachi and Pulton asserted that they

had no sales during the period of review

(POR).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting these

reviews in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act) and § 353.22 of the

Department’s regulations (19 CFR

353.22). 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 the reviews are

shipments of roller chain, other than

bicycle, from Japan. The term ‘‘roller

chain, other than bicycle,’’ as used in

these reviews 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 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 conveyer chain.

These reviews also cover 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. These

reviews further cover 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.

Best Information Available (BIA)

In accordance with section 776(c) of

the Tariff Act, the Department has

preliminarily determined that the use of

best information available (BIA) is

appropriate for Pulton for the 1993–94

POR and for Daido and Enuma for the

1992–1993 and 1993–1994 PORs. 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 that company first-tier

BIA, which is 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.

When a company has substantially

cooperated with our requests for

information including, in some cases,

verification, but fails to provide

complete or accurate information, we

assign that company second-tier BIA,

which is the higher of: (1) the highest

rate (including the ‘‘all others’’ rate)

ever applicable to the firm for the same

class or kind of merchandise from either

the LTFV investigation or a prior

administrative review or, if the firm has

never before been investigated or

reviewed, the all others rate from the

LTFV investigation; or (2) the highest

calculated rate in this review for the

same class or kind of merchandise for

any firm. (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)).

Results Based on Total BIA

In response to the Department’s

questionnaire, Pulton stated that it had

no sales and no exports to U.S.

customers during the 1993–94 period of

review (POR). Subsequently, the

Department received information from

Customs indicating that there were

entries of roller chain, other than

bicycle, manufactured by Pulton during

the POR.

When presented with this

information, Pulton stated that it had

inadvertently failed to report one

shipment of subject merchandise during

the POR. Because Pulton failed to report

the shipment of subject merchandise in

response to the Department’s

questionnaire, we have treated Pulton as

uncooperative and used first-tier BIA

(see above) to determine its dumping

margin for this review. In this case the

rate used was 43.29 percent which was

from the first roller chain review

completed by the Department (46 FR

44488, September 4, 1981).

Assignment of Partial BIA

Partial BIA was applied in cases

where we were unable to use some

portion of a response in calculating a

dumping margin. The use of partial

rather than total BIA reflects the fact

that, in general, the respondent has been

cooperative.

During the 1993–94 POR, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices 28173

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).

During the 1992–93 and 1993–94

PORs, further processing costs were

incurred by Daido and Enuma in sales

of further-assembled, attachmentequipped roller chain, through their

United States subsidiary, Daido

Corporation. However, Daido and

Enuma reported transfer prices rather

than actual material costs, and used a

cost allocation methodology which,

upon analysis, we determined was in a

form not providing a reliable indication

of their actual further processing costs.

Additionally, Daido and Enuma refused

to provide the Department with the

necessary model match and difference

in merchandise adjustment information

necessary to calculate a dumping

margin for certain U.S. sales where there

were no contemporaneous sales of

identical merchandise in the home

market.

However, because the overall integrity

of Izumi, Daido and Enuma’s

questionnaire responses warrants a

calculated rate, but certain U.S. sales

lacked the proper further

manufacturing, model match, or

downstream sales information necessary

to calculate a dumping margin, we

applied the appropriate second-tier BIA

rate (see above) to each respondent. For

the 1992–93 POR we assigned the

second-tier BIA rate of 1.19 percent to

Daido and Enuma which is the highest

rate previously assigned to Daido and

Enuma in the final results of the April

1, 1979 through September 30, 1979

antidumping administrative review (46

FR 44488, 44490, September 4, 1981).

For the 1993–94 POR we applied the

second-tier BIA rate of 2.17 percent to

Daido and Enuma which is the highest

calculated rate in these preliminary

results, and the second-tier BIA rate of

43.29 percent to Izumi, which is the

highest rate previously assigned to

Izumi in the final results of the April 1,

1983 through March 31, 1984

antidumping administrative review (57

FR 46535, October 9, 1992). We limited

application of these rates to the

particular transactions involved.

United States Price (USP)

In calculating USP for the 1992–93

and 1993–94 PORs for all companies

subject to these reviews, the Department

used purchase price (PP) as defined in

section 772 (b) of the Act, when the sale

to the first unrelated purchaser occurred

prior to importation. The Department

treated Daido and Enuma’s sales as

exporter’s sale price (ESP) sales, as

defined in section 772(c) of the Act,

when subject merchandise was sold to

unrelated U.S. purchasers after

importation. PP sales were based on the

packed, FOB or ex-go-down Japanese

port price, or CIF U.S. port prices to

unrelated purchasers in the United

States. For PP sales, we made

adjustments, where applicable, for

brokerage and handling charges, foreign

inland freight, foreign inland insurance,

ocean freight, marine insurance,

commissions, discounts, credit

expenses, and bank charges in

accordance with 772(d)(2) of the Act.

ESP for the 1992–93 and 1993–94

PORs for Daido and Enuma was based

on the packed, FOB warehouse or

delivered price to unrelated purchasers.

We made adjustments, where

applicable, for brokerage and handling

charges, movement expenses, marine

insurance, inventory expenses, credit

expenses, packing costs, indirect selling

expenses, and commissions in

accordance with 772(d)(2) of the Act.

During the 1992–93 and 1993–94 PORs,

further processing costs were incurred

by Daido and Enuma’s United States

subsidiary, Daido Corporation.

However, we determined that the

reporting methodology of such expenses

is unreliable and assigned a BIA margin

to sales that incurred such expenses (see

BIA above).

In light of the Federal Circuit’s

decision in Federal Mogul versus United

States, 63 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995), 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 versus 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

versus 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 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 (FMV)

In calculating FMV for the 1992–93

and 1993–94 PORs for all companies

subject to these reviews, the Department

used home market price, as defined in

section 773 of the Tariff Act, when

sufficient quantities of such or similar

merchandise were sold in the home

market to provide a basis for

comparison.

We utilized constructed value (CV) as

the basis for FMV for those U.S. sales by

Izumi during the 1993–94 POR for
28174 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Notices

which there were no corresponding

home market model matches, in

accordance with section 773(a) of the

Tariff Act.

Home market price, for the 1992–93

and 1993–94 PORs for all companies

subject to these reviews, was based on

a packed, FOB or CIF, delivered price to

related and unrelated purchasers in

Japan. We calculated CV for Izumi for

the 1993–94 POR as the sum of

materials, fabrication costs, general

expenses, profit and U.S. packing. We

added statutory or actual amounts for

the general expenses and profit

components of CV, as appropriate.

For PP sales comparisons, where

applicable, for all companies subject to

the 1992–93 and 1993–94 PORs, we

made deductions from FMV for

brokerage, inland freight, insurance and

discounts. Where applicable, we made

adjustment for differences in packing

expenses, credit expenses, advertising

expenses, warranty expenses, technical

services, and differences in

merchandise. We made further

adjustments, where appropriate, for U.S.

commissions in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2). Where commissions were

paid on U.S. sales and not paid on home

market sales, we allowed an offset to

FMV amounting to the lesser of the

weighted-average home market indirect

selling expenses or the U.S.

commissions in accordance with 19 CFR

353.58(b) of the Department’s

regulations. We also made an

adjustment to FMV for consumption

taxes in accordance with the ‘‘Zenith

footnote 4’’ methodology discussed

above.

For comparison to ESP sales by Daido

and Enuma during the 1992–93 and

1993–94 PORs, we allowed an ESP

offset to FMV, amounting to the lesser

of the weighted-average total of home

market indirect selling expenses or the

total U.S. indirect selling expenses, in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

No other adjustments were claimed or

allowed.

We conducted an arms’s length test

and determined that Izumi’s sales to its

related customers during the 1993–94

POR were made at arm’s length because

the prices Izumi charged to its related

customers were at least 99.5 percent of

the prices it charged to unrelated

customers.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine the following

dumping margins for the period April 1,

1992 through March 31, 1993:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Daido ........................................... 0.15

Enuma ......................................... 0.04

Further, we preliminarily determine the

following dumping margins for the

period April 1, 1993 through March 31,

1994:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Hitachi ......................................... *12.68

Izumi ........................................... 23.57

Pulton .......................................... **43.29

RK Excel ..................................... 2.17

Daido ........................................... 0.03

Enuma ......................................... 0.06

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

* No sales during the period. Rate is from

the last period in which there were sales.

** Not a calculated rate. Rate reflects the assignment of first-tier total BIA (see BIA section

above).

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

Individual differences between United

States price and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. Upon

completion of the review the

Department will issue appraisement

instructions on each exporter directly to

Customs.

Interested parties may request

disclosure within five days of the date

of publication of this notice, and may

request a hearing within ten days of the

date of publication. Any hearing, if

requested, will be held as early as

convenient for the parties but not later

than 44 days after the date of

publication or the first work day

thereafter. Case briefs or other written

comments from interested parties may

be submitted not later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments,

limited to issues in the case briefs, may

be filed not later than 37 days after the

date of publication. The Department

will publish the final results of this

administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such written comments or at a

hearing.

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 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 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 in the original less-than-fair-value

(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) 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 15.92, 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 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 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)(a)

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

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

Paul L. Joffe,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13965 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of

Scientific Instruments

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub.

L. 89–651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part

301), we invite comments on the

question of whether instruments of

equivalent scientific value, for the

purposes for which the instruments

shown below are intended to be used,