Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or Uncured, From Japan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-807]

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews;

Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or

Uncured, From Japan

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative

reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On November 4, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary results of its administrative

reviews of the antidumping duty order on industrial belts and

components thereof, whether cured or uncured (industrial belts), from

Japan. These reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter and the periods

June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992 and June 1, 1992 through May 31,

1993.

We gave interested parties the opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we

have not changed the margins from those presented in our preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Vannatta or John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 4, 1993, the Department published in the Federal

Register (58 FR 58839) the preliminary results of its 1991-92 and 1992-

93 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on industrial

belts from Japan (June 14, 1989, 54 FR 25314, amended August 4, 1989,

54 FR 32104). The Department has now completed these reviews in

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

Tariff Act).

Scope of the Reviews

Imports covered by these reviews are shipments of industrial belts

and components and parts thereof, whether cured or uncured, from Japan.

These products include V-belts, synchronous belts, and other industrial

belts, in part or wholly of rubber or plastic, and containing textile

fiber (including glass fiber) or steel wire, cord or strand, and

whether in endless (i.e., closed loops) belts, or in belting in lengths

or links. These reviews exclude conveyor belts and automotive belts, as

well as front engine drive belts found on equipment powered by internal

combustion engines, including trucks, tractors, buses, and lift trucks.

During the periods of review the merchandise was classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings, 3926.90.55, 3926.90.56,

3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60, 4010.10.10, 4010.10.50, 4010.91.11,

4010.91.15, 4010.91.19, 4010.91.50, 4010.99.11, 4010.99.15, 4010.99.19,

4010.99.50, 5910.00.10 5910.00.90, and 7326.20.00. The HTS subheadings

are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

These reviews cover one Japanese manufacturer and exporter of

industrial belts to the United States, Mitsuboshi Belting Limited

(MBL), and the periods June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992, and June 1,

1992 through May 31, 1993.

Analysis of the Comments Received

The Department gave interested parties the opportunity to comment

on the preliminary results of these administrative reviews. We received

a case brief from MBL, and a rebuttal brief from the petitioner, Gates

Rubber Company. We did not receive a request for a hearing.

Comment: MBL acknowledges that the Department's resort to best

information available (BIA) is authorized under section 776(c) of the

Tariff Act, since MBL did not respond to the Department's

questionnaire.

MBL argues, however, that the Department should use information

obtained in the first administrative review (1989-90) as BIA instead of

the rate from the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation.

MBL contends that the Department is required to consider the most

recent information available in deciding upon a BIA rate. According to

MBL, the information provided by the respondent in the first

administrative review is the most probative evidence of the current

margin because the LTFV margin was based solely on information provided

by the petitioner for the period October 1986 through March 1988.

Furthermore, MBL argues that it could not make an informed decision

to reply to the questionnaires. MBL claims that since the Department

has not completed the 1990-91 review before distributing questionnaires

for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 reviews, the Department cannot infer that

MBL would have responded to these questionnaires if it believed the

margins for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 reviews would be lower. Therefore,

MBL claims that the Department's conduct in this case is punitive.

Finally, MBL points out that the International Trade Commission's

affirmative injury determination is being appealed at the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). MBL urges the Department not to

assess antidumping duties and order liquidation of their entries in a

review where the validity of the underlying order is in question.

Gates argues that the Department should not change its preliminary

decision to resort to the LTFV margin from the original investigation

as BIA. Gates states that MBL has provided no authority for the

proposition that the Department should use as BIA the margin from the

preliminary results in the 1989-90 administrative review. Gates

contends that knowledge of results of prior reviews is irrelevant.

Gates submits that MBL knew it might receive the highest rate, and that

it would have submitted information proving lower margins if it could.

Finally, Gates asserts that there is no justification for delaying

completion of the reviews.

Department's Position: Section 776(c) of the Tariff Act requires us

to use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable

to produce information requested in a timely manner and in the form

required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation.'' In

deciding what to use as BIA, the Department's regulations provide that

the Department may take into account whether a party refuses to provide

information requested (19 CFR 353.37(b)). MBL's contention that the

Department should use the information obtained in the 1989-90

administrative review is contrary to Department policy. When a

respondent refuses to cooperate with the Department, it is our policy

to assign as a dumping margin to that respondent, as BIA, the higher

of: (1) The highest rate found for any firm in the original LTFV

investigation or previous administrative review, or (2) the highest

rate found in the current review (Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France et al, Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28360, 28379

(June 24, 1992)). The Department's methodology for assigning BIA has

been upheld by the CAFC (see Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v. United

States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Krupp Stahl AG et al. v. United

States, 822 F. Supp. 789 (CIT 1993)). Because MBL refused to respond to

the Department's questionnaire, it was reasonable for the Department to

assign to MBL, as BIA, a rate of 93.16 percent, the highest rate found

for any firm in the original LTFV investigation. Furthermore, because

the law does not provide for extensions of deadlines pending the

outcome of court decisions in other proceedings, we have not delayed

our final results.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of these administrative reviews, the Department

determines that a dumping margin of 93.16 percent exists for MBL for

the periods June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992 and June 1, 1992 through

May 31, 1993.

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 this notice of final results of review for all

shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as

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

(1) For subject merchandise exported by Mitsuboshi Belting Ltd., a

cash deposit of 93.16 percent;

(2) For subject merchandise exported by manufacturers not covered

in these reviews but covered in previous reviews or in the original

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 these reviews, 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 reviews conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be 93.16 percent, the ``all other'' rate established

in the LTFV investigation, as discussed below.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul

Corporation and the Torrington Company 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 ``all others'' rate from the LTFV

investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical

errors as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders.

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 these review periods. 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 disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of

the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the

regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

These administrative reviews and this 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: December 23, 1993.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-516 Filed 1-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M