Certain Small Business Telephone Systems and Subassemblies Thereof From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-583-806]

Certain Small Business Telephone Systems and Subassemblies

Thereof From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Lou Apple, Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC

20230; telephone: (202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-1769, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 4, 1992 (57 FR 57419), the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity

to Request an Administrative Review'' of the Antidumping Duty Order on

Certain Small Business Telephone Systems and Subassemblies from Taiwan

(December 11, 1989, 54 FR 50790). The review covers the period December

1, 1991 through November 30, 1992. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(2), on December 28 and 30, 1992, respectively, Bitronic

Telecoms Co., Ltd., (``Bitronic'') and Tecom Co., Ltd. (``Tecom'') each

requested an administrative review of the antidumping order. The

Department initiated the administrative review on February 23, 1993 (58

FR 11026) and is conducting the administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

On March 17, 1993, Tecom withdrew its request for an administrative

review.

On February 17, 1994, the Department issued a questionnaire to

Bitronic. Bitronic submitted its questionnaire response on April 18,

1994. On May 20, 1994, the Department issued a supplemental

questionnaire which identified deficiencies in Bitronic's response.

Bitronic submitted its supplemental questionnaire response on June 23,

1994, and amendments to its supplemental response on July 8, 1994.

Partial Termination of Review

Because Tecom withdrew its request within 90 days of publication of

notice of initiation of the review, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(5), we are terminating this review with respect to Tecom.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain small

business telephone systems and subassemblies thereof, currently

classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers: 8504.40.0004, 8504.40.0008, 8504.40.0010, 8504.40.0015,

8517.10.0020, 8517.10.0040, 8517.10.0050, 8517.10.0070, 8517.10.0080,

8517.30.2000, 8517.30.2500, 8517.30.3000, 8517.81.0010, 8517.81.0020,

8517.90.1000, 8517.90.1500, 8517.90.3000, 8517.90.4000, and

8518.30.1000. Although HTS item numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this

proceeding is dispositive.

Certain small business telephones and subassemblies thereof are

telephone systems, whether complete or incomplete, assembled or

unassembled, with intercom or internal calling capability and total

non-blocking port capacities of between two and 256 ports, and discrete

subassemblies designed for use in such systems. A subassembly is

``designed'' for use in a small business telephone system if it

functions to its full capability only when operated as part of a small

business telephone system. These subassemblies are designed as follows:

(1) Telephone sets and consoles, consisting of proprietary, corded

telephone sets or consoles. A console has the ability to perform

certain functions including: Answer all lines in the system, monitor

the status of other phone sets, and transfer calls. The term

``telephone sets and consoles'' is defined to include any combination

of two or more of the following items, when imported or shipped in the

same container, with or without additional apparatus: Housing, hand

set, cord (line or hand set), power supply, telephone set circuit

cards, or console circuit cards.

(2) Control and switching equipment, whether denominated as a key

service unit, control unit, or cabinet/switch. ``Control and switching

equipment'' is defined to include the units described in the preceding

sentence which consist of one or more circuit cards or modules

(including backplane circuit cards) and one or more of the following

items, when imported or shipped in the same container as the circuit

cards or modules, with or without additional apparatus: Connectors to

accept circuit cards or modules and building wiring.

(3) Circuit cards and modules, including power supplies. These may

be incorporated into control and switching equipment of telephone sets

and consoles, or they may be imported or shipped separately. A power

supply converts or divides input power of not more than 2400 watts into

output power of not more than 1800 watts supplying DC power of

approximately 5 volts, 24 volts, and 48 volts, as well as 90 volt AC

ringing capability.

The following merchandise is excluded from the scope of this order;

(1) Nonproprietary industry-standard (``tip/ring'') telephone sets and

other subassemblies that are not specifically designed for use in a

covered system, even though a system may be adapted to use such

nonproprietary equipment to provide some system functions; (2)

telephone answering machines or facsimile machines integrated with

telephone sets; and (3) adjunct software used on external data

processing equipment.

Preliminary Results of Review

While Bitronic responded to the Department's questionnaire and

deficiency letter, major deficiencies remained in its U.S. sales

response. These deficiencies included failure to report U.S. sales by a

related subsidiary and failure to report U.S. customs entry

information. Bitronic claimed that it was unable to report the

subsidiary's sales because the subsidiary is no longer in business.

Without complete U.S. sales reporting and customs entry data, the

Department is unable to calculate a proper assessment rate, or apply a

calculated rate to those sales which Bitronic reported.

Because Bitronic failed to adequately produce the information

requested, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, we have

preliminarily determined that the use of best information available

(BIA) is appropriate. Since Bitronic made substantial attempts to

submit information to the Department in a timely manner, we consider it

to be a cooperative respondent. Standard Department practice dictates

that for a cooperative respondent, the Department will generally assign

to that respondent the higher of (a) the highest rate ever applicable

to that respondent for the same class or kind of merchandise from

either the Less Than Fair Value (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 (b) the highest calculated rate in this review for

the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country or

origin (see, Final Results of Administrative Review: Antifriction

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts thererof from

the Federal Republic of Germany, (56 FR 31705, July 11, 1991). This

practice has been upheld in Allied Signal Aerospace Co. v. United

States, 996 F.2nd 1195, 1191-92 (Fed. Cir. 1993), and Krup Stahl AG et.

al. v. United States, 822 F. Supp 789 (CIT 1993).

Therefore, since Bitronic was not a party to the LTFV investigation

and there are no other firms in this review, we used as BIA the highest

rate ever applicable to Bitronic--6.97 percent as determined in the

August 3, 1989, through November 30, 1990, administrative review (57 FR

29283, July 1, 1992).

We preliminarily determine the dumping margin for the period

December 1, 1991, to November 30, 1992, to be:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Bitronic Telecoms Co., Ltd................................... 6.97

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between the United States price and the foreign market

value may vary from the percentages stated above. Upon completion of

this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions

concerning the respondent directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

upon publication of the final result of this administrative review for

all shipments of small business telephone systems and subassemblies

thereof from Taiwan, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of

this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the

Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed company will be that

established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this

review but covered in the original LTFV investigation or previous

reviews, 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 or the original less than fair value

investigation or previous reviews, but the manufacture is, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of this review or, if not covered in

this review, the rate for the most recent period for the manufacturer;

and (4) the cash deposit rate for any future entries from all other

manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 0.00% percent, the ``all

others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation of this case, in

accordance with the Court of International Trade's (CIT's) decisions in

Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and

Federal Mogul Corporation and the Torrington Company v. the United

States 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993).

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 the

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.

Public Comment

Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice in the Federal Register and may request a

hearing within 10 days of the date of publication. Interested parties

may submit written comments (case briefs) on these preliminary results

not later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal comments

(rebuttal briefs), limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be

filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Any

hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of

publication. The Department will include its analysis of issues raised

in any such written comments when it publishes the final results of

this administrative review.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 16, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-31963 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M