Bicycle Speedometers From Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-038]

Bicycle Speedometers From Japan; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty

administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request from a domestic producer, the

Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative

review of the antidumping finding on bicycle speedometers from Japan.

The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this merchandise sold in

the United States for the period November 1, 1992 through October 31,

1993. We preliminarily find that a margin of 3.62 percent exists for

the manufacturer/exporter, Cat Eye, Co., Ltd.

We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below

the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference

between the United States price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur N. DuBois or Thomas F. Futtner,

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-

6312/3814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 22, 1972, the Department of Treasury published in the

Federal Register (37 FR 24826) an antidumping finding on bicycle

speedometers from Japan. On November 15, 1993, a domestic manufacturer,

Avocet, Inc. (Avocet), in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), requested

that the Department conduct an administrative review. Avocet is an

interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). We published a notice of initiation

of the antidumping duty administrative review on December 17, 1993 (58

FR 1993). The Department is now conducting this

[[Page 5899]] administrative review in accordance with section 751 of

the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are shipments of bicycle

speedometers. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 9029.20.20, 9029.40.80,

and 9029.90.40. HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes. Our written description remains dispositive.

The review covers the shipments of Cat Eye Co., Ltd. (Cat Eye), a

manufacturer/exporter of bicycle speedometers during the period

November 1, 1992 through October 31, 1993.

United States Price

The Department used purchase price, as defined in section 772 of

the Tariff Act, to calculate USP. Purchase price was based on the

f.o.b., packed price from the producer to an unrelated Japanese trading

company for sale to the United States under the name ``Specialized'',

or to the first unrelated purchaser in the United States. We made

adjustments where applicable, for foreign inland freight, and brokerage

and handling charges. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

For its FMV calculation, the Department used home market price, as

defined in section 773 of the Tariff Act, since sufficient quantities

of such or similar merchandise were sold in the home market to provide

a basis for comparison. Home market price was based on the packed,

delivered price to unrelated purchasers. We made adjustments, where

applicable, for post-sale inland freight, quantity rebates, and

differences in credit, direct advertising, and packing costs. In

addition, we made a difference-in-merchandise adjustment, where

appropriate, based on differences in the variable costs of manufacture.

No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

In our calculations we utilized annual weight-averaged FMVs for

purposes of comparison as in antifriction bearings from Japan. See

Antifriction Bearings from Japan, et al.; Final Results of

Administrative Review, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993).

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily

determine that the margin for Cat Eye is 3.62 percent for the period

November 1, 1992 through October 31, 1993.

Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date

of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days

of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after

the date of publication, or on the first workday thereafter. Case

briefs and/or written comments may be submitted not later than 30 days

after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs or rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be filed not

later than 37 days after the date of publication. The Department will

publish the final results of the administrative review, including the

results of its analysis of any comments submitted or made during a

hearing.

Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will

issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly to

Customs.

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 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 company

will be that established in the final results of this administrative

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 previous review, or the

original less-than-fair-value (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, the cash deposit rate will be the ``new

shipper'' rate established in the first administrative review, 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 original ``all others'' rate from

the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for correction for

clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed

by antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping

findings, unless we are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from

the Treasury LTFV investigation, the Department has determined that it

is appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the

first final results of the administrative review published by the

Department (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical error or

as a result of litigation) as the ``all others'' rate for the purposes

of establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative

reviews.

Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping finding, and

we are unable to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury

LTFV investigation, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes of the

review will be 26.44 percent, the ``new shipper'' rate established in

the first final results of administrative review published by the

Department (47 FR 28978, July 2, 1982).

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 has occurred and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)), and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: January 16, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-2352 Filed 1-30-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P