[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6846]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 23, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-588-802]
3.5 Inch Microdisks and Coated Media Thereof From Japan; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration/International Trade Administration
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on 3.5 inch microdisks and coated media thereof (microdisks)
from Japan. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this
merchandise to the United States, Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. (HML), and the
period April 1, 1992 through March 31, 1993.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of comments received, we
have changed the final results from those presented in our preliminary
results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-6312/3814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 30, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 69339) the preliminary results
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
microdisks (54 FR 13406, April 3, 1989). The Department has now
completed that administrative review in accordance with section 751 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), and 19 CFR 353.22.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of 3.5 inch microdisks
and coated media thereof from Japan, currently classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 8523.20.0000. The HTS item
number is provided for convenience and for Customs purposes only. The
written descriptions remain dispositive.
A 3.5 inch microdisk is a tested or untested magnetically coated
polyester disk with a steel hub enclosed in a hard plastic jacket.
These microdisks are used to record and store encoded digital computer
information for access by a 3.5 inch floppy disk drive. The 3.5 inch
microdisk includes single-sided, double-sided, or high-density formats.
The 3.5 inch microdisk is intended for use specifically in a 3.5 inch
floppy disk drive.
Coated media is the flexible recording material used in the
finished microdisk. Media consists of a polyester base film to which a
coating of magnetically charged particles is bonded.
This review covers one Japanese manufacturer/exporter of this
merchandise to the United States, HML, and the period April 1, 1992
through March 31, 1993.
Analysis of Comments Received
The Department gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on
the preliminary results of this administrative review as provided by
section 353.38 of the Commerce Regulations. We received comments from
the respondent, HML. We have corrected the clerical errors noted by the
respondents, and have addressed them specifically in this notice.
Comment 1: HML commented that rebates and discounts should not be
included in constructed value because they are price adjustments and
not expenses. It cites Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller
Bearings) and Parts Thereof from The Federal Republic of Germany, Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (55 FR 31692, 31732,
July 11, 1991), as an example of the Department's practice.
Department's Position: We agree. Our preliminary analysis
memorandum may have made it seem as if we included rebates and
discounts in constructed value. However, we did not include rebates and
discounts in our preliminary constructed value calculation because it
is not our policy to do so. Therefore, no change in our calculations
was necessary.
Comment 2: HML commented that in comparing U.S. sales to
constructed value, the Department made an error regarding home market
inventory carrying costs of coated media. HML asserts that the
Department should include these costs when determining the total amount
of home market indirect expenses to deduct from constructed value just
as it did in calculating the deduction from home market prices.
Department's Position: We agree. It was our intention as we stated
in our preliminary notice that inventory carrying costs be included in
the pool of indirect home market selling expenses.
Therefore, we have corrected our calculations. In accordance with
our practice, we have limited the adjustment to constructed value of
home market indirect expenses to the amount of indirect expenses HML
incurred on its exporter's sales price transactions.
Comment 3: HML pointed out two clerical errors in the model match
table used in the computer program which caused no matching FMV sales
to be found for two of the models sold in the United States.
Department's Position: We agree and have corrected the our
calculations accordingly.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of this administrative review, the Department
determines that the following margin exists for the period April 1,
1992, through March 31, 1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/producer/exporter percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HML........................................................... 0.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of these final results of this administrative review
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) For subject
merchandise exported by HML, a cash deposit of 0.96 percent; (2) For
subject 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, a cash deposit based on the most
recently published rate in a final result 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, a prior 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) If neither the
exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any
previous review reviews conducted by the Department, the cash deposit
rate will be 42.85 percent, the ``all other'' rate established in the
LTFV investigation, as discussed below.
On March 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT), in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-
Mogul Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83, 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 original ``all others''
rate from the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for
correction of clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in a
proceeding governed by an antidumping duty order.
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 a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction 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 the terms of 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: March 10, 1994.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-6846 Filed 3-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-05-P