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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-008]

Color Television Receivers From the Republic of Korea;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration/

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners, the Department of

Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on color television receivers from the Republic of Korea. The

review covers exports of this merchandise to the United States during

the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993. Three companies

failed to respond to our questionnaire and received a rate based on the

best information available. For the remaining four companies, we have

preliminarily determined that there were no known shipments of the

subject merchandise during the period of review.

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev Primor or Wendy Frankel, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 30, 1993, the Independent Radionic Workers of America, the

United Electrical Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, the International Union of Electronic, Electrical,

Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, AFL-CIO, and Industrial Union

Department, AFL-CIO (the Unions), the petitioners in this proceeding,

requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on

color television receivers (CTVs), complete or incomplete, from the

Republic of Korea (ROK) (49 FR 18336, April 30, 1984) in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.22(a). On May 27, 1993, the Department of Commerce (the

Department) published a notice of initiation of this review which

covers seven manufacturers/exporters for the period April 1, 1992,

through March 31, 1993 (58 FR 30,767). The Department is now conducting

this review pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act).

The petitioners requested that the Department review seven

manufacturers/exporters for the period April 1, 1992, through March 31,

1993. Four respondents, Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd. (Daewoo), Goldstar

Electronics Co., Ltd. (Goldstar), Samwon Electronics, Inc. (Samwon),

and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), indicated that they had no

sales during the period of review (POR). Three companies, Quantronics

Manufacturing Korea, Ltd. (Quantronics), Tongkook General Electronics,

Inc., and Cosmos Electronics Manufacturing Korea, Ltd., did not respond

to our requests for information. As the best information available

(BIA) under 776(c) of the Tariff Act, when a company fails to provide

the information requested in a timely manner, the Department considers

the company uncooperative and generally assigns to that company the

higher of (a) the highest rate assigned to any company in any previous

review, including the less-than-fair-value investigation (LTFV), or (b)

the highest rate for a responding company with shipments during the

POR. Therefore, we have used the highest rate from the LTFV

investigation, which was 16.57 percent, in determining the margins for

these three companies for this review, because this rate is higher than

the highest rate in the current review.

Scope of Review

The products covered by this review include color television

receivers, complete and incomplete, from the ROK. The order covers all

CTVs regardless of tariff classification. During the POR, the subject

merchandise was classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item

numbers 8528.10.60, 8529.90.15, 8529.90.20 and 8540.11.00. The HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The

written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product

coverage.

Preliminary Results of Review

Because four of the respondents stated they had no sales during the

POR, on June 24, 1993, the Department requested the U.S. Customs

Service (Customs) to confirm that there was no record of entries of the

subject merchandise from the ROK during the POR. We received no

affirmative responses from Customs.

On July 23, 1993, petitioners provided the Department with import

data from the Port Import-Export Reporting Service (PIERS) (a private

for-profit computerized data bank) and alleged that Samsung, Daewoo and

Goldstar ``exported'' to the United States CTVs from the ROK. The

information submitted by the petitioners included: Type of product

imported, product code, weight of cargo, cargo's number of units, date

of arrival, exporter's name and location, U.S.-based importer's name

and its location, point of origin, and the name of the U.S. port of

discharge. All three respondents, mentioned on the list, submitted

comments regarding petitioners' allegations.

Goldstar, in its August 17, 1993, comments, claimed that the PIERS

data bank is merely a ``compilation of manifests of vessels that

discharge cargo at U.S. commercial seaports.'' Additionally, Goldstar

pointed out that the submitted database does not contain the official

Customs entry information, lacks HTS classification, and does not

distinguish between the merchandise discharged at the U.S. seaport for

consumption entry into the U.S. and merchandise that is transshipped to

third country destinations. Despite the limited information, Goldstar

argues that it was able to determine that all the shipments listed in

PIERS by the petitioners were either: (1) Shipments of CTVs passing

through the U.S. commercial seaports without entry into the United

States; or (2) imports of printed circuits boards (PCBs) into the

United States that are not subject to the scope of the antidumping duty

order on CTVs from the ROK.

On September 1, 1993, Daewoo submitted a rebuttal to the

petitioners' allegations echoing Goldstar's concerns about the

inadequacy of the data submitted to the Department. Additionally,

Daewoo points out that frequently the PIERS listing shows as ``U.S.

based importer'' a freight forwarder or intermediate consignee rather

than an actual U.S. importer. Moreover, Daewoo claims that the review

of virtually all of its ``entries,'' submitted by the petitioners,

reveals final destinations of the cargo in third country markets such

as Mexico or Argentina.

On October 5, 1993, Samsung also responded to the petitioners'

allegations by pointing out that with the exception of one destination,

Saddle Brook, New Jersey, all of Samsung's other shipments were made to

third country markets. With regard to the Saddle Brook, New Jersey

destination, given the limited information, Samsung was not able to

determine whether any of the shipments represented covered merchandise

or were even destined for the U.S. market. Further, Samsung claims that

the PIERS listings offer insufficient information to link petitioners'

claims with Samsung's entry documents.

On February 25, 1994, the Department again requested information

from Customs as to whether any entries of the subject merchandise had

been made during the POR. On March 21, 1994, Customs responded with a

list of entries indicating that certain merchandise, under the covered

HTS item numbers, had entered the United States. The Department

provided this information to the respondents with a request for an

explanation as to the nature of these entries. On March 28, 1994, we

received information from each of the respondents supporting their

claims that the entries in question were of merchandise which is not

subject to the antidumping duty order on CTVs from the ROK. Respondents

certified that the entries consisted either of merchandise destined for

third country markets or contained television parts not covered by the

antidumping duty order.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine that Daewoo, Goldstar,

Samwon, and Samsung had no shipments of the subject merchandise during

the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993. The cash deposit

rates established in the final results of the prior administrative

review for those firms, published in the Federal Register on March 23,

1994 (59 FR 13700), will remain in effect for this review.

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter percentage

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

Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd................................. \1\1.23

Goldstar Electronics Co., Ltd............................... \1\0.00

Samwon Electronics, Inc..................................... \1\0.53

Cosmos Electronics Manufacturing Korea...................... 16.57

Quantronics Manufacturing Korea, Ltd........................ 16.57

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd................................ \1\0.37

Tangkook General Electronics, Inc........................... 16.57

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

\1\No shipments; rate from previous review.

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.

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 a hearing.

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to Customs

Service upon completion of this review.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of the subject merchandise 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 Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies will be those rates established in the final results of this

review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not

listed above, 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, 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.

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 proceedings governed by antidumping duty

orders. Therefore, the ``all others'' rate will be 13.90 percent, the

``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (49 FR 7620,

March 1, 1984).

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 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 of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR

353.22(c)(1993).

Dated: April 3, 1994.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-8611 Filed 4-8-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M