Color Television Receivers From the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-580-008]

Color Television Receivers From the Republic of Korea;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests by interested parties, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) is conducting administrative reviews of

the antidumping duty order on color television receivers (CTVs) from

the Republic of Korea. The reviews cover exports of this merchandise to

the United States by the manufacturer Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd.

(Daewoo). Based on our review of these exports during the period April

1, 1988 through March 31, 1989, we preliminarily find a margin of 4.00

percent. Daewoo had no shipments during the April 1, 1989 through March

31, 1990, administrative review period. We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 29, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne D'Alauro or Richard Herring,

Office of Countervailing Compliance, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482-2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 31, 1989, the Department published in the Federal Register

a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (54 FR

13211) of the antidumping duty order on color television receivers from

the Republic of Korea for the period April 1, 1988 through March 1,

1989 (sixth review). The Independent Radionic Workers of America,

International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Technical, Salaried and

Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers of America, and the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, the

petitioners in this proceeding, and Zenith Electronics Corporation, a

domestic interested party, requested an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order with respect to Daewoo for this period. For the

subsequent (seventh) review period, April 1, 1989 through March 31,

1990, the opportunity notice was published on April 10, 1990 (55 FR

13302), Zenith Electronics Corporation requested the seventh period

review of Daewoo.

On May 24, 1989 and June 1, 1990, the Department published a notice

of initiation for the sixth and seventh administrative reviews,

respectively. The Department is now conducting these administrative

reviews with respect to Daewoo in accordance with section 751 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

On May 1, 1990, we received a letter from counsel for Daewoo

stating that the company had no shipments during the period April 1,

1989 through March 31, 1990 and, therefore, would not be submitting a

questionnaire response. We received no further comments.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review include CTVs, complete and

incomplete, from the Republic of Korea. The order covers all CTVs

regardless of tariff classification. During the period of review, the

subject merchandise was classified under item numbers 684.9246,

684.9248, 684.9250, 684.9252, 684.9253, 684.9255, 684.9256, 684.9258,

684.9262, 684.9263, 684.9270, 684.9275, 684.9655, 684.9656, 684.9658,

684.9660, 684.9663, 684.9864, 684.9866, 687.3512, 687.3513, 687.3514,

687.3516, 687.3518, and 687.3520, of the Tariff Schedules of the United

States Annotated (TSUSA). This merchandise is currently classifiable

under item numbers 8528.10.80, 8529.90.15, 8529.90.20, and 8540.11.00

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS and TSUSA

item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope remains dispositive.

United States Price

For a portion of Daewoo's sales, we based United States Price (USP)

on purchase price (PP) in accordance with section 772(b) of the Tariff

Act. We based USP on PP because CTVs were sold to unrelated purchasers

in the United States prior to importation into the United States and

because exporter's sales price (ESP) methodology was not indicated by

other circumstances. For the remainder of Daewoo's sales, we based USP

and ESP because those sales were made to unrelated parties after

importation into the United States, pursuant to section 772(c) of the

Tariff Act.

We calculated PP based on packed, C&F, CIF, or F.O.B. Korea prices

to unrelated customers in the United States. We made deductions, where

applicable, for foreign inland freight, Electronic Industries

Association of Korea (EIAK) fees, ocean freight (which includes Korean

customs clearance fees), marine insurance, U.S. and Korean brokerage

and handling charges, wharfage, U.S. duties, U.S. customs processing

fees, harbor maintenance fees, U.S. inland freight, and rebates. Where

applicable, we made an addition for import duties collected and rebated

on imported raw materials used in merchandise exported to the United

States.

We calculated ESP based on the packed, CIF prices to unrelated

customers in the United States. We made deductions, where applicable,

for foreign inland freight, EIAK export fees, ocean freight (which

includes customs clearance fees), marine insurance, U.S. and Korean

brokerage and handling charges, wharfage, U.S. duties, U.S. customs

processing fees, harbor maintenance fees, U.S. inland freight and

container delivery, royalties, commissions, warranty, return set

losses, warehousing, credit, and indirect selling expenses. Where

applicable, we made an addition for import duties collected and rebated

on imported raw materials used in merchandise exported to the United

States.

We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as

outlined in Silicon Manganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994.

There were no other adjustments claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value (FMV)

In calculating FMV, the Department used home market price, as

defined in section 773 of the Tariff Act, since sufficient quantities

of such or similar merchandise were sold above the cost of production

in the home market to provide a basis for comparison. Home market price

was based on the packed, delivered price to the first unrelated

purchaser in the home market. Where applicable, we made deductions for

inland freight, discounts, rebates, advertising, warranties, credit,

and royalties, as well as making adjustments for differences in

merchandise and packing. We adjusted FMV for taxes in accordance with

our practice as outlined in Silicon Manganese from Venezuela,

Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR

31204, June 17, 1994. The company's warehousing expense could not be

tied directly to either a particular customer or sales of the subject

merchandise, therefore it was treated as an indirect selling expense.

In light of the CAFC's decision in Ad Hoc Committee of AD-NM-TX-FL

Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, 13 F3d 398 (CAFC

1994), the Department no longer can deduct home market movement charges

from FMV pursuant to its inherent power to fill in gaps in the

antidumping statute. We instead will adjust for those expenses under

the circumstance-of-sale (COS) provision of 19 CFR 353.56 and the ESP

offset provision of 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and (2), as appropriate, in the

manner described below.

When USP is based on PP, we only adjust for home market movement

charges through the COS provision of 19 CFR 353.56. Under this

adjustment, we capture only direct selling expenses, which include

post-sale movement expenses and, in some circumstances, pre-sale

movement expenses. Specifically, we will treat pre-sale movement

expenses as direct expenses if those expenses are directly related to

the home market sales of the merchandise under consideration. Moreover,

in order to determine whether pre-sale movement expenses are direct,

the Department will examine the respondent's pre-sale warehousing

expenses, since the pre-sale movement charges incurred in positioning

the merchandise at the warehouse are, for analytical purposes,

inextricably linked to pre-sale warehousing expenses. If the pre-sale

warehousing constitutes an indirect expense, the expense involved in

getting the merchandise to the warehouse also must be indirect;

conversely, a direct pre-sale warehousing expense necessarily implies a

direct pre-sale movement expense.

When USP is based on ESP, the Department uses the COS adjustment in

the same manner as in PP situations. Additionally, under the ESP offset

provision set forth in 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1) and (2), we will adjust for

any pre-sale movement charges which are treated as indirect selling

expenses. Accordingly, because the Department has preliminarily

determined that pre-sale warehousing costs are an indirect expense, the

Department is also treating pre-sale movement costs as an indirect

expense. Therefore, no COS adjustment has been made for these costs.

For ESP sales, an adjustment for indirect costs has been made under the

ESP offset provision.

For comparisons involving PP transactions, we added direct selling

expenses including royalties, commissions, credit and warranties in

order to adjust for differences in circumstances of sale between the

two markets. In addition, indirect selling expenses were deducted from

FMV in an amount not exceeding the amount of commissions paid on PP

sales in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1). For comparisons involving

ESP transactions, we deducted indirect selling expenses from FMV in an

amount not exceeding the sum of the indirect selling expenses incurred

and commissions paid on ESP sales, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.56(b)(2). No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the

weighted-average dumping margin for the April 1, 1988 through March 31,

1989, period for Daewoo is 4.00 percent. The company had no shipments

during the April 1, 1989 through March 31, 1990 period.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.38(c), case briefs and/or written comments

from interested parties may be submitted no later than 30 days after

the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals

to written comments, limited to issues raised in the case briefs and

comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of

publication of this notice pursuant to 19 CFR 353.38(d).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.38(b), within 10 days of the date of

publication of this notice, interested parties to this proceeding may

request a disclosure and/or a hearing. The hearing, if requested, will

take place no later than 44 days after publication of this notice.

Persons interested in attending the hearing should contact the

Department for the date and time of the hearing. The Department will

subsequently 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.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, since Daewoo has been reviewed in a period subsequent

to this period, the cash deposit rate for Daewoo will remain at 0.90

percent, the company's rate from the most recently reviewed period.

See, Color Television Receivers from the Republic of Korea; Amendment

to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (59 FR

21958; April 28, 1994).

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 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

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, as amended (19 U.S.C 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: June 23, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-15954 Filed 6-27-94; 2:58 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P-M