Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Germany

[[Page 8035]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[A-428-821]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Large Newspaper Printing

Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From

Germany

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Darzenta or William Crow, Office

of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International

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

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

482-6320 or (202) 482-0116.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act) are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act.

Preliminary Determination

As explained in the memoranda from the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration dated November 22, 1995, and January 11, 1996,

the Department of Commerce (the Department) has exercised its

discretion to toll all deadlines for the duration of the partial

shutdowns of the Federal Government from November 15 through November

21, 1995, and December 16, 1995, through January 6, 1996. Thus, all

deadlines in this investigation have been extended by 28 days, i.e.,

one day for each day (or partial day) the Department was closed. The

revised deadline for this preliminary determination is February 23,

1996.

We preliminarily determine that large newspaper printing presses

and components thereof (``LNPPs'') from Germany are being, or are

likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value

(``LTFV''), as provided in section 733 of the Act. The estimated

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''

section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this investigation on July 20, 1995 (Notice

of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Large Newspaper

Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or

Disassembled, 60 FR 38546 (July 27, 1995)(Initiation Notice)), the

following events have occurred:

On August 14, 1995, the United States International Trade

Commission (``ITC'') notified the Department of Commerce (the

Department) of its affirmative preliminary determination (see ITC

Investigation No. 731-TA-736 and 737).

On August 28, 1995, we presented Section A of the Department's

questionnaire 1 to MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG and its U.S.

affiliate MAN Roland Inc. (collectively ``MAN Roland''), and Koenig &

Bauer-Albert AG and its U.S. affiliate KBA-Motter Corp. (collectively,

``KBA''). See the ``Respondent Selection'' section of this notice. MAN

Roland's responses to Section A were received on September 27, 1995 (as

amended on September 29, 1995), October 4, 1995, and October 10, 1995.

On September 25, 1995, KBA informed the Department that it would not be

responding to the Department's questionnaire.

\1\ Section A requests data concerning corporate organization,

accounting practices, markets and merchandise.

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

On October 20, 1995, at the request of Rockwell International

Corporation (the petitioner), we postponed the preliminary

determination to January 26, 1996. (See Notice of Postponement of

Preliminary Determinations: Antidumping Investigation of Large

Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or

Unassembled From Japan, 60 FR 54841, October 26, 1995.)

On October 24, 1995, the petitioner alleged that there are

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that MAN Roland made below-

cost sales of the subject merchandise in Germany, and that these below-

cost sales must be excluded from the Department's calculation of profit

for constructed value (``CV''). Because we determined the appropriate

basis for normal value (``NV'') to be CV, we did not address

petitioner's below-cost allegation. We did, however, solicit contract

price and production cost data for MAN Roland's home market sales of

subject merchandise in order to compute selling, general and

administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit for CV in accordance with

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. (See ``Product Comparisons'' section

of this notice.)

The Department issued Sections C, D and E of its questionnaire \2\

to MAN Roland on October 27, 1995. Responses to these sections of the

questionnaire were received on December 13, 1995. A supplemental

questionnaire was not issued to MAN Roland on January 18, 1996. On

January 30, 1996, MAN Roland submitted corrections to clerical errors

contained in its December 13, 1995, Section D response. MAN Roland's

responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaire were received

on January 31, and February 1, 1996. A revised U.S. sales listing was

submitted on February 2, 1996.

\2\ Section C requests data on sales to the United States.

Section D requests data on the cost of production and constructed

value. Section E requests data on the cost of further manufacturing

or assembly performed in the United States.

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

During the period July 28, 1995 through January 23, 1996, the

petitioner, MAN Roland and KBA filed comments requesting clarification

of the scope of this investigation with respect to elements (i.e.,

parts or subcomponents) of covered components, and spare and

replacement parts. Respondents in the concurrent investigation of LNPPs

from Japan, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Tokyo Kikai

Seisakusho, also submitted comments concerning scope. On January 23,

1996, the petitioner clarified the scope to exclude used presses. See

``Scope of Investigation'' section of this notice. At the Department's

request, on February 8, 1996, the parties filed comments on suspension

of liquidation instructions.

On February 2 and 9, 1996, the petitioner filed comments on issues

to be resolved and methodologies to be employed in the preliminary

determination. KBA and MAN Roland filed such comments on February 8 and

12, 1996, respectively.

Facts Available

KBA failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Section

776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party (1) withholds

information that has been requested by the Department, (2) fails to

provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner

requested, (3) significantly impedes a determination under the

antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the Department shall use facts

otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Because

KBA failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we must use

facts otherwise available with regard to KBA.

Section 776(b) provides that adverse inferences may be used against

a party that has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with requests for information. See also Statement of

Administrative Action, at 870. KBA's failure to reply to the

Department's questionnaire demonstrates that KBA has failed to

cooperate to the best of its ability in this

[[Page 8036]]

investigation. Thus, the Department has determined that, in selecting

among the facts otherwise available to KBA, an adverse inference is

warranted. As facts otherwise available, we are assigning to KBA the

margin stated in the notice of initiation, 46.40 percent.

Section 776(c) provides that when the Department relies on

secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts

otherwise available it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate

that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its

disposal. When analyzing the petition, the Department reviewed all of

the data the petitioner had in calculating the estimated dumping

margin. This estimated dumping margin was based on a comparison of the

bid price for a sale of a LNPP system made by MAN Roland to an

unrelated U.S. customer and the CV of that LNPP system. As a result of

that analysis, the Department modified the CV methodology that the

petitioner relied upon in calculating the estimated margin. On the

basis of those modifications, the Department recalculated the estimated

dumping margin and found it to be 46.40 percent. See Initiation Notice.

The Department corroborated all of the secondary information from which

the margin was calculated during our pre-initiation analysis of the

petition, to the extent appropriate information was available for this

purpose at that time. For purposes of the preliminary determination,

the Department reexamined the price information provided in the

petition in light of information developed during the investigation,

and found that it continues to be of probative value.

Respondent Selection

The producers named in the petition were MAN Roland and KBA. On

August 4, 1995, we contacted the U.S. Embassy in Bonn, Germany,

requesting the identification of German producers and exporters of

LNPPs to the United States, and the volume and value of subject

merchandise they sold to the United States during the period January 1,

1991 through May 31, 1995. On August 24, 1995, we received a reply

cable with information concerning the U.S. sales activities of MAN

Roland and KBA. The cable did not indicate that there were other German

exporters of subject merchandise to the United States. In addition to

this cable, we received a separate cable from the U.S. Embassy replying

to the ITC's request for information on German manufacturers of subject

merchandise. While this cable identified eight additional German

manufacturers of various press technologies, it did not specify whether

they were producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.

Based on the petition and the information received from the U.S.

Embassy, we issued questionnaires to MAN Roland and KBA. We did not

send any additional questionnaires, as no evidence on the record

suggested that any other German manufacturer sold LNPPs in the United

States during the specified period. (See Memorandum to The File Re:

Questionnaire Recipients, dated August 28, 1995.)

Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional

Measures

Pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act, on February 23, 1996,

MAN Roland, requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary

determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final

determination until 60 days after the date of the scheduled final

determination, which is equivalent to 135 days after the publication of

an affirmative preliminary determination in the Federal Register. In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.20(b)(1995), because our preliminary

determination is affirmative, the respondent accounts for a significant

proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and no compelling

reasons for denial exist, we are granting respondent's request and

postponing the final determination.

Section 733(d) of the Act provides that provisional measures may

not remain in effect for more than four months. However, that provision

of the Act also states that the Department may extend that period to

six months at the request of exporters representing a significant

proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. No such explicit

request was made in this case. However, we interpret the request of MAN

Roland to extend the final determination in this investigation to

contain an implied request to extend provisional measures in accordance

with Section 733(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we have extended the

period for provisional measures to six months.

Scope of Investigation

As specified below, we have revised the scope since our notice of

initiation to exclude used presses, in accordance with the petitioner's

January 23, 1996, clarification. Furthermore, we have clarified the

scope to include ``elements'' (otherwise referred to as ``parts'' or

``subcomponents'') of an LNPP system, addition or component, which

taken as a whole, constitute a subject LNPP system, addition or

component used to fulfill an LNPP contract. See ``Scope Issues''

section of this notice concerning the treatment of elements in the

scope. In addition, we have stipulated that spare or replacement parts,

which are imported pursuant to an LNPP contract and are separately

identified and valued in that contract, whether or not shipped in

combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the scope of

the investigation. See February 23, 1996, Decision Memorandum to

Richard Moreland from The Team Re: Scope Issues.

The products covered by these investigations are large newspaper

printing presses, including press systems, press additions and press

components, whether assembled or unassembled, that are capable of

printing or otherwise manipulating a roll of paper more than two pages

across. A page is defined as a newspaper broadsheet page in which the

lines of type are printed perpendicular to the running of the direction

of the paper or a newspaper tabloid page with lines of type parallel to

the running of the direction of the paper.

In addition to complete systems, the scope of these investigations

includes the five press system components. They are:

(1) A printing unit, which is any component that prints in

monocolor, spot color and/or process (full) color, or a printing-unit

cylinder;

(2) A reel tension paster (RTP), which is any component that feeds

a roll of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages in width into

a subject printing unit;

(3) A folder, which is a module or combination of modules capable

of cutting, folding, and/or delivering the paper from a roll or rolls

of newspaper broadsheet paper more than two pages in width into a

newspaper format;

(4) Conveyance and access apparatus capable of manipulating a roll

of paper more than two newspaper broadsheet pages across through the

production process and which provides structural support and access;

and

(5) A computerized control system, which is any computer equipment

and/or software designed specifically to control, monitor, adjust, and

coordinate the functions and operations of large newspaper printing

presses or press components.

A press addition is comprised of a union of one or more of the

press components defined above and the equipment necessary to integrate

such components into an existing press system.

[[Page 8037]]

Because of their size, large newspaper printing press systems,

press additions, and press components are typically shipped either

partially assembled or unassembled. Any of the five components, or

collection of components, the use of which is to fulfill a contract for

large newspaper printing press systems, press additions, or press

components, regardless of degree of assembly and/or degree of

combination with non-subject elements before or after importation, is

included in the scope of this investigation. Also included in the scope

are elements of an LNPP system, addition or component, which taken as a

whole, constitute a subject LNPP system, addition or component used to

fulfill an LNPP contract.

This scope does not cover spare or replacement parts. Spare or

replacement parts imported pursuant to an LNPP contract, which are not

integral to the original start-up and operation of the LNPP, and are

separately identified and valued in an LNPP contract, whether or not

shipped in combination with covered merchandise, are excluded from the

scope of this investigation. Used presses are also not subject to this

scope. Used presses are those that have been previously sold in an

arm's length transaction to a purchaser that used them to produce

newspapers in the ordinary course of business.

Further, these investigations cover all current and future printing

technologies capable of printing newspapers, including, but not limited

to lithographic (offset or direct), flexographic, and letterpress

systems.

The products covered by these investigations are imported into the

United States under subheadings 8443.11.10, 8443.11.50, 8443.30.00,

8443.59.50, 8443.60.00, and 8443.90.50 of the HTSUS. Large newspaper

printing presses may also enter under HTSUS subheadings 8443.21.00 and

8443.40.00. Large newspaper printing press computerized control systems

may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8471.49.10, 8471.49.21, 8471.49.26,

8471.50.40, 8471.50.80, 8524.51.30, 8524.52.20, 8524.53.20, 8524.91.00,

8524.99.00 and 8537.10.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the

scope of these investigations is dispositive.

Scope Issues

Since our initiation, we received numerous comments from interested

parties in this investigation and the concurrent investigation

involving Japan, requesting that the Department clarify the treatment

of ``elements'' in the scope of the investigation.

In general, respondents believe that if the imported elements do

not constitute a complete, albeit unassembled, component, or are

missing ``essential'' elements to function as one of the five

components named in the scope, they would not be subject to the scope

of this investigation and the concurrent investigation involving Japan.

The petitioner believes that, because an imported LNPP press, addition

or component will almost always contain elements, which, by themselves,

are not subject to the scope, it is not practical to exclude these

elements from the scope of the investigation in so far as they comprise

an incomplete subject component. For a complete discussion of these

comments, see February 23, 1996 Memorandum to Richard W. Moreland from

The Team Re: Scope Issues.

As stated in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section above, we

interpret the scope to include those elements or collection of elements

imported from a subject country in so far as they constitute any one of

the five covered components which are, in turn, used to fulfill a

contract for a LNPP press system, press addition or press component.

Individual parts per se are not covered by the scope of these

investigations unless taken as a whole they constitute a subject

component used to fulfill an LNPP contract. This interpretation,

however, raises a question: at what point do the elements imported from

a subject country rise to the level of an LNPP component, addition or

system subject to the scope of these investigations?

The Department must decide on a reasonable and practicable approach

in determining what constitutes a subject LNPP component, addition or

system, and in so doing, establish the basis on which we will include

elements in the scope. We are considering two alternative approaches

for analyzing what governs the inclusion of parts or subcomponents,

other than spare or replacement parts, within the scope of these

investigations. One approach would consider, on a case-by-case basis,

whether the imported parts or subcomponents when taken together are

essentially an LNPP system, addition or component. This so-called

``essence'' approach is of necessity subjective and turns on the

question of how near the sum of the imported parts comes to comprising

a complete LNPP system, addition or component. A second approach would

consider the value of the imported parts or subcomponents relative to

the total value of the finished LNPP component, addition or system in

the United States. That is, we would determine that the imported parts

or subcomponents would be within the scope if they comprised a certain

minimum percentage of the value of the parts of a finished LNPP system,

addition or component.

Both of these approaches raise threshold questions. Because certain

sales reported by respondents in both the German and Japanese

investigations consist of imported elements from Germany or Japan,

rather than a complete LNPP component, addition or system, acceptance

of either of the two approaches will have implications as to which of

the respondents' sales the Department will consider in its final

determination. Therefore, we are presently soliciting comments from

interested parties as to the merits of these approaches and/or others

that may be relevant for use in the final determination. Interested

party comments on this topic are due no later than May 1, 1996.

Period of Investigation (POI)

The petitioner and MAN Roland filed comments during the period

October 19 through 26, 1995, concerning the appropriate POI. On October

27, 1995, we established the appropriate POI for MAN Roland to be July

1, 1993 through June 30, 1995.

As a result of changes to section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, which

codified the normal period within which sales made below the cost of

production are to be analyzed, the Department modified the standard POI

to cover a one year period. In this investigation, however, in order to

capture sufficient and representative sales, the Department extended

the POI to two years, instead of the normal one-year period, because of

the nature of the LNPP industry, characterized by custom order sales

and long term sales contracts. (See October 27, 1995 Memorandum to

Richard W. Moreland from The Team Re: Establishing the Period of

Investigation.)

Product Comparisons

Although the home market was viable, in accordance with section 773

of the Act, we based NV on CV because we determined that the particular

market situation, which requires that the subject merchandise be built

to each customer's specifications, does not permit proper price-to-

price comparisons. (See November 9, 1995, Memorandum to Richard W.

Moreland from The Team Re: Determining the Appropriate Basis for Normal

Value.)

[[Page 8038]]

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether MAN Roland's sales of LNPPs to the United

States were made at less than fair value, we compared Constructed

Export Price (``CEP'') to the NV, as described in the ``Constructed

Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice. In

accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(ii), we calculated transaction-

specific CEPs (which in this case were synonymous with model-specific

CEPs) for comparison to transaction-specific NVs because of the limited

number of sales and the custom-made merchandise.

Constructed Export Price

In accordance with subsections 772(b) and (d) of the Act, we

calculated CEP for sales to the first unaffiliated purchaser by a

seller affiliated with the producer/exporter that took place before

importation and involved further manufacturing in the United States.

We calculated CEP sales based on packed, delivered and/or installed

prices to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made

deductions from the starting price (gross unit price), where

appropriate, for the following charges: inland freight to port in

Germany, foreign inland insurance, foreign brokerage and handling,

international freight, marine insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling,

U.S. Customs duty and U.S. inland freight. We made corrections to

respondent's data where the data reported in the U.S. sales listing

conflicted with the data contained in support documentation submitted

in its questionnaire responses.

We also made deductions for post-sale warehousing, commissions,

imputed credit, training, warranty and product liability. In

calculating imputed credit, we took into account the unique nature and

magnitude of the LNPP projects under investigation. These projects

require substantial capital expenditures over an extended time period

because of their size and their lengthy production process. Moreover,

the projects generally call for the purchaser to provide scheduled

progress payments prior to the completion of a given project. In

consideration of these factors, we computed credit by applying an

interest rate to the net balance of production costs incurred and

progress payments made during the construction period. We imputed

credit expenses for U.S. sales using the weighted-average U.S. short-

term interest rate reported for the POI because these sales were

denominated in U.S. dollars.

We also deducted those indirect selling expenses that related to

economic activity in the United States. We recalculated these expenses

based on sales revenues, rather than sales orders. We disallowed an

adjustment for the warehousing income claimed for one sale because of

insufficient evidence on the record to support respondent's claim that

such an adjustment was warranted.

We also deducted the value of spare and replacement parts, which

are excluded from the scope of the investigation, where the value of

these spare and replacement parts was separately identified in the

contractual documentation governing the sale. In addition, for one

sale, we deducted the value of the used equipment portion of the LNPP

which is excluded from the scope of the investigation.

We classified installation expenses, as well as special testing and

start-up costs associated with the installation process, as part of

further manufacturing in the United States because the U.S.

installation process involves extensive technical activities on the

part of engineers and installation supervisors, and the integration of

subject and non-subject merchandise necessary for the operation of

LNPPs. We also classified as part of further manufacturing costs, the

cost of certain non-German items either shipped directly to the United

States without further processing in Germany, or sourced in the United

States, for integration into the overall LNPP during the installation

process.

Furthermore, we deducted the cost of any further manufacturing or

assembly (including additional material and labor, installation,

special testing and start-up costs). We recomputed the U.S. further

manufacturer's reported general and administrative (``G&A'') expense

rate using the cost of sales amount reported in its financial

statements; and for one U.S. sale, we reduced the further manufacturing

costs by the reported cost of used equipment. Finally, we made an

adjustment for CEP profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the

Act.

Normal Value/Constructed Value

For the reasons outlined in the ``Product Comparisons'' section of

this notice, we based NV on CV.

In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV

based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials, fabrication,

SG&A and U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales database. In

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the

amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the

production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course

of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.

We relied on the respondent's CV amounts, except in the following

specific instances wherein the reported costs were improperly valued:

1. We excluded respondent's reported negative interest expense

amounts for all sales;

2. We excluded the multiple facility adjustment reported in cost of

manufacturing (``COM'');

3. For each uncompleted press, we applied to the submitted standard

overhead costs the variance experienced by MAN Roland for the most

recently completed fiscal year (July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995);

4. We recalculated the time variance for manufacturing overhead

costs based on the adjusted costs as computed in item 3 above;

5. We recalculated product line research and development costs, and

G&A expenses based on the full cost of each U.S. contract;

6. In calculating the CV profit rate and selling expense rates, we

adjusted the reported home market cost data for items 1 through 3 noted

above;

We also included in CV the costs of spare and replacement parts for

those U.S. sales where the value of these parts could not be separately

identified in the contractual documentation and therefore could not be

excluded from CEP.

For selling expenses, we used the average home market selling

expense rate, calculated based on the selling expenses reported for

home market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, and applied

this rate to the U.S. COM. We recalculated home market indirect selling

expenses based on sales revenues, rather than sales orders.

We calculated imputed credit for CV purposes in accordance with the

methodology explained in the ``Constructed Export Price'' section of

this notice. We imputed credit expenses for CV using the weighted-

average home market short-term interest rate reported for the POI since

these sales were denominated in deutschemarks.

In accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B), we added U.S. packing

costs to a CV net of packing.

Price to CV Comparisons

For CEP to CV comparisons, we deducted from CV the average home

market direct selling expenses pursuant to section 773(a)(8) of the

Act.

Currency Conversion

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to convert

foreign

[[Page 8039]]

currencies based on the dollar exchange rate in effect on the date of

sale of the subject merchandise, except if it is established that a

currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export

sale. When a company demonstrates that a sale on forward markets is

directly linked to a particular export sale in order to minimize its

exposure to exchange rate losses, the Department will use the rate of

exchange in the forward currency sale agreement. In this case, although

MAN Roland reported that forward currency exchange contracts applied to

certain U.S. sales, the record information was not sufficient to

conclude that these contracts were directly linked to the particular

sales in question. Therefore, for the purpose of the preliminary

determination, we made currency conversions based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by

the Federal Reserve Bank.

Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' For this preliminary

determination, we have determined that a fluctuation exists when the

daily exchange rate differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent.

The benchmark is defined as the rolling average of rates for the past

40 business days. When we determined a fluctuation existed, we

substituted the benchmark for the daily rate.

Further, section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60-day

adjustment period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement.

Such an adjustment period is required only when a foreign currency is

appreciating against the U.S. dollar. No adjustment period is warranted

in this case, because the deutschemark generally remained constant

against the U.S. dollar during the POI.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all

information used in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing the

Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of LNPP systems,

additions and components, whether assembled or unassembled, from

Germany, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption,

on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. Furthermore, because we are still in the process of

clarifying the definition of a subject LNPP system, addition or

component, as explained in the ``Scope Issues'' section of this notice,

we are also directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of

entries of elements (parts or subcomponents) of components imported to

fulfill a contract for an LNPP system, addition, or component, from

Germany, that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption,

on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

In addition, in order to ensure that our suspension of liquidation

instructions are not so broad as to cover merchandise imported for non-

subject uses, foreign producers/exporters and U.S. importers in the

LNPP industry shall be required to provide certification that the

imported merchandise would not be used to fulfill an LNPP contract. We

will also request that these parties register with the Customs Service

the LNPP contract numbers pursuant to which subject merchandise is

imported. With respect to entries of LNPP spare and replacement parts,

and used presses, from Germany, which are expressly excluded from the

scope of the investigation, we will instruct the Customs Service not to

suspend liquidation of these entries if they are separately identified

and valued in the LNPP contract pursuant to which they are imported.

The Customs Service will require a cash deposit or posting of a bond

equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the

export price as shown below. These suspension of liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

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

Weighted-

average

Exporter/Manufacturer margin

percentage

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

MAN Roland Druckmaschinen AG............................... 17.70

Koenig & Bauer-Albert AG................................... 46.40

All Others................................................. 17.70

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

The Department has excluded the margin for KBA, which is based on

adverse facts available, from the calculation of the All Others rate.

The All Others rate applies to all entries of subject merchandise

except for entries of merchandise produced by MAN Roland and KBA.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the

ITC of our determination. If our final determination is affirmative,

the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of

this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination

whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments in at least ten copies must

be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration no

later than May 16, 1996, and rebuttal briefs, no later than May 23,

1996. A list of authorities used and an executive summary of issues

should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Such summary

should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act, we will hold a public hearing,

if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on

arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs. Tentatively, the hearing

will be held on June 4, 1996, time and place to be determined, at the

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time,

date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate

if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room

B-099, within ten days of the publication of this notice. Requests

should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be

discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the

briefs. If this investigation proceeds normally, we will make our final

determination by 135 days after the publication of this notice in the

Federal Register.

This determination is published pursuant to section 733(f) of the

Act.

Dated: February 23, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-4730 Filed 2-29-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P