# 3.5 Inch Microdisks and Coated Media Thereof From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6846 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** March 23, 1994 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6846. Public record. Not legal advice.