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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-588-807]

Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured

or Uncured, 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 May 8, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published a notice of preliminary results of its administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on industrial belts and components

thereof, whether cured or uncured (industrial belts), from Japan. This

review covers one manufacturer/exporter during the period June 1, 1993,

through May 31, 1994.

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 dumping margin from those presented in our

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Trentham or Zev Primor, Office of

Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-

5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the

Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Background

On May 8, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register

(60 FR 22561) the preliminary results of the 1993-94 (fifth)

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on industrial belts

from Japan (54 FR 25314, June 14, 1989). The Department has now

completed this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review 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. This review excludes 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 period 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. These HTS

subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S.

[[Page 39930]]

Customs Service (Customs Service) purposes. Our written description of

the scope of the order remains dispositive.

This review covers one Japanese manufacturer and exporter of

industrial belts to the United States, Mitsuboshi Belting Limited

(MBL), and the period June 1, 1993 through May 31, 1994.

Analysis of the Comments Received

The Department gave interested parties the opportunity to comment

on the preliminary results of this administrative review. We received a

case brief from MBL, and case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner,

Gates Rubber Company (Gates). 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 while the first review margin is based on information provided by

MBL for the period of February 1, 1989 through May 31, 1990.

Furthermore, MBL points out that in two separate actions before the

United States Court of International Trade (CIT), it is challenging the

Department's choice of BIA in the second administrative review and in

the third and fourth administrative reviews. MBL urges the Department

to withhold making a final determination as to the applicable BIA in

this fifth administrative review until the ongoing litigation is

resolved.

Gates argues that based on MBL's refusal to cooperate in this

review, the Department should apply the highest margin determined for

any period to MBL's entries. According to Gates, the Department has

previously rejected MBL's argument that information obtained in the

first administrative review (1989-90) should be used as BIA and has

consistently applied the highest margin determined for any period to

MBL's entries. Gates states that the basis for this determination is

the fact that MBL refused to respond to the questionnaire. As such,

Gates contends, it is well-established under Department practice that

the highest prior rate should apply.

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 a dumping margin to that respondent, as BIA, based on 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 for any firm 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 Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit (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. Further, 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. In addition, the CIT has held that the Department may base BIA

on a rate established in a prior review that is subject to challenge

(see D & L Supply Co. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-92 at 13 (CIT May

15, 1995), citing D & L Supply Co., 841 F. Supp. 1312, 1314 (CIT

1993)). Furthermore, the CIT has recognized the need for the Department

to be able to issue final determinations in a timely fashion based upon

the rates available at the time the final determination is due (see D &

L Supply Co., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 95-92 at 15 (CIT May

15, 1995)).

Final Results of the Review

As a result of this administrative review, the Department

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

the period June 1, 1993 though May 31, 1994.

The Department will instruct the 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 requirement 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 MBL, a cash deposit of 93.16 percent; (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; and (4) If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer

is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate of

93.16 percent established in the LTFV investigation.

This notice 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 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.

This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with

section

[[Page 39931]]

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

Dated: July 28, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-19257 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P