Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan (A- 588-028)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle, From Japan (A-

588-028)

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Amended final results of antidumping duty administrative order.

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

SUMMARY: On November 10, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the

final results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan. This review

covered six manufacturers/exporters of roller chain in Japan during the

period April 1, 1995, through March 31, 1996: (1) Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd.

(Daido); (2) Enuma Chain Mfg. Co., Ltd. (Enuma); (3) Izumi Chain

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Izumi); (4) Hitachi Metals Techno Ltd.

(Hitachi); (5) Pulton Chain Co., Ltd. (Pulton); and (6) R.K. Excel Co.,

Ltd. (RK) (collectively, the respondents).

Interested parties submitted ministerial error allegations with

respect to the final results of administrative review for Daido and

Enuma on November 17, 1997. Based on the correction of certain

ministerial errors made in the final results of review, we are amending

our final results of review with respect to Daido and Enuma.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Trentham or Jack Dulberger, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Office Four, Import Administration, International

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

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

482-4793 and (202) 482-5505, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department of Commerce (the Department) has now amended the

final results of this administrative review in accordance with section

751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Act are references to the provisions

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

the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are

to the regulations set forth at 19 CFR part 353 (1997).

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this review is roller chain, other than

bicycle, from Japan. The term ``roller chain, other than bicycle,'' as

used in this review, includes chain, with or without attachments,

whether or not plated or coated, and whether or not manufactured to

American or British standards, which is used for power transmissions

and/or conveyance. This chain consists of a series of alternately-

assembled roller links and pin links in which the pins articulate

inside from the bushings and the rollers are free to turn on the

bushings. Pins and bushings are press fit in their respective link

plates. Chain may be single strand, having one row of roller links, or

multiple strand, having more than one row of roller links. The center

plates are located between the strands of roller links. Such chain may

be either single or double pitch and may be used as power transmission

or conveyor chain. This review also covers leaf chain, which consists

of a series of link plates alternately assembled with pins in such a

way that the joint is free to articulate between adjoining pitches.

This review further covers chain model numbers 25 and 35. Roller chain

is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS) subheading 7315.11.00 through 7619.90.00.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs

purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

Background

On November 10, 1997, we published in the Federal Register our

notice of final results of administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on roller chain, other than bicycle, from Japan (Notice of

Final Results and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, from Japan (62 FR

[[Page 67346]]

60472, November 10, 1997) (Roller Chain Final FR Notice)).

On November 17, 1997, two of the respondents in the above-

referenced review, Enuma and Daido, submitted timely written

allegations that the Department made certain ministerial errors in the

above-referenced administrative review. Enuma alleged two ministerial

errors with respect to the following: (1) unmatched identical models

within the 90-60 day rule period and (2) a data input error by

respondent in the sales database. Daido alleged five ministerial errors

with respect to the following three issues: (1) unmatched identical

models within the 90-60 day rule period, (2) unmatched U.S. sales with

identical sales in the home market database, and (3) data input errors

by respondent in the sales database. Petitioner did not allege the

existence of ministerial errors, nor has petitioner commented on

respondent's allegations. For a complete discussion of the allegations,

see the Department's December 17, 1997, Decision Memorandum Re:

Ministerial Error Allegation in the Antidumping Administrative Review

on Roller Chain, Other than Bicycle, from Japan (95-96).

As discussed below, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(d), we have

determined that certain ministerial errors were made in our margin

calculations for Enuma and Daido.

Alleged Ministerial Errors

Enuma

Issue 1: Unmatched U.S. Sales--Computer Searching Error

Enuma states that the Department incorrectly identified three U.S.

sales as not having a home market match within the comparison period

(i.e., the 90-60 day period). Enuma contends that the printout of its

November 15, 1996, sales tape, which the Department used in its final

results calculations, shows home market sales of the identical model,

during the 90-60 day period for these three sales. Enuma requests that

the Department correct this error and to review its program to

determine if any other currently designated unmatched U.S. sales have

matches and to revise the dumping margins accordingly.

DOC Position: We agree with Enuma and have corrected this

ministerial error. After review of Enuma's margin program, we found

that we inadvertently failed to include a step in the product matching

section of the program. This resulted in a failure to properly identify

all home market sales of the identical model during the 90-60 day

window period. Correction of the margin program resulted in matching

two of the three previously unmatched U.S. sales identified by Enuma in

its November 17, 1997, clerical error allegation and an additional

unmatched U.S. sale not identified by Enuma. The third U.S. sale

identified by Enuma could not be matched to the home market sale

identified by Enuma because the home market sale was a sale to an

affiliated customer which was determined not to be at arm's length and

was subsequently excluded from our analysis. See Roller Chain Final FR

Notice.

Issue 2: Unmatched U.S. Sales--Computer Input Error

In two instances, Enuma states that it inadvertently assigned

slightly different control numbers for the same products on its home

market and U.S. sales tapes. In the first instance, Enuma states that

an extra digit was mistakenly added to the end of a home market control

number. In the other, Enuma states that an extra digit was added to the

end of a U.S. control number. As a result, Enuma argues that U.S. sales

that should have had identical home market matches went unmatched.

Enuma requests that we revise the control numbers for those two models

so that the control numbers on both the home market and U.S. sales

tapes are identical.

DOC Position: Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Act), authorizes the Department to establish procedures for the

correction of ministerial errors in final determinations. Section

751(h) provides that the term ``ministerial'' error includes errors in

addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors

resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any

other type of unintentional error which the administering authority

considers ministerial.

The Department's implementing regulations at 19 CFR 353.28

establish which errors the Department considers ministerial. A

``ministerial error'' is defined under 19 CFR 353.28 as: an error in

addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error

resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any

other type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers

ministerial.

The Department interprets the authority granted to it by Section

751(h) of the Act as allowing the Department to make post-final results

corrections only for its own (``ministerial'') errors. See Preamble of

19 CFR Sec. 351.224 (emphasis in original). Therefore, the Department

does not believe that it may make corrections after final results of

administrative review for errors committed by a party to the

proceeding. Consequently, we made no revision to Enuma's margin

calculation with regard to Enuma's alleged error.

Daido

Issue 1: Unmatched U.S. Sales--Computer Searching Error

Daido states that the Department incorrectly applied the 90-60 day

window in its attempt to match U.S. and home market sales of identical

or similar merchandise within the contemporaneous time period.

Specifically, Daido states that the Department only applied the 90-60

day rule in a forward direction (i.e., 60 days forward), but did not

search for home market sales 90 days prior to the date of the U.S.

sale. As a result, Daido maintains that numerous sales were designated

as unmatched U.S. sales.

DOC Position: We agree with Daido and have corrected this

ministerial error. After review of Daido's margin program, we found

that we inadvertently failed to include a step in the product matching

section of the program. This resulted in a failure to properly search

for home market sales 90 days prior to the date of the U.S. sale.

Correcting the margin program resulted in matching previously unmatched

U.S. sales as identified by Daido in its November 17, 1997, clerical

error allegation.

Issue 2: Unmatched U.S. Sales with Identical Sales in the Home Market

Database

Daido states that its home market portion of its questionnaire

response contained two matching control number fields--one for CEP

sales matching purposes and another for EP sales matching purposes.

Daido claims that it was necessary to report two control number fields

in the database because, depending on the type of transaction (i.e.,

CEP or EP), there were different codes applied to identical

merchandise. Daido states that the Department correctly matched CEP

sales against sales with an identical control number in the home market

control number field corresponding to CEP sales. However, Daido argues

that, the Department failed to match EP sales with an identical control

number in the home market control number field corresponding to EP

sales. Daido claims that this failure resulted in the Department

designating these sales as unmatched.

DOC Position: We agree with Daido and have corrected this

ministerial error. After review of Daido's margin

[[Page 67347]]

program, we found that we inadvertently failed to include a step in the

product matching section of the program. This resulted in a failure to

properly search for identical control numbers in both of the home

market control number fields for a given U.S. sale. Correcting the

margin program resulted in matching previously unmatched U.S. sales as

identified by Daido in its November 17, 1997, clerical error

allegation.

Issue 3: Unmatched U.S. Sales--Computer Input Error by Respondent

Daido states that, in three instances, it inadvertently assigned

slightly different control numbers for the same products on its home

market and U.S. sales tapes. Specifically, in the first instance, Daido

states that it made home market sales of a model identical to one sold

in the United States. However, Daido states that although the digits in

the control number are exactly the same in the U.S. and home market

sales tapes, it inadvertently coded the home market model with a space

in the middle. In the second instance, Daido claims that an extra digit

was mistakenly added to the end of a home market control number. In the

final instance, Daido maintains that although for one model the control

number in the U.S. sales listing differs from the control number in the

home market sales listing by one digit (i.e., the use of a ``C'' in the

home market and a ``D'' in the United States), the products are

identical. As a result of these three errors, certain U.S. sales went

unmatched. Daido requests that we revise the matching control numbers

in the three instances listed above so that the control numbers on both

the home market and U.S. sales tapes are identical.

DOC Position: The Department does not believe that it may make

corrections after final results of administrative review for errors

committed by a party to the proceeding. (See Enuma issue number 2).

Consequently, we made no revision to Daido's margin calculation with

regard to these alleged errors.

Amended Final Results

As a result of our correction of the ministerial errors, we have

determined the following amended margins exist for Enuma and Daido for

the period April 1, 1995 through March 31, 1996:

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

Manufacturer/exporter Percentage*

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

Daido...................................................... 3.09

Enuma...................................................... 1.55

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

* Amended Weighted-Average Margin

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions concerning the respondent directly

to the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following cash 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 these amended final results of administrative review, as

provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate

for each reviewed company named above will be the rate as stated above;

(2) for previously investigated or reviewed 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, 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

review, the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters

will be 15.92 percent, the All Others rate based on the first review

conducted by the Department in which a ``new shipper'' rate was

established in the final results of antidumping administrative review

(48 FR 51801, November 14, 1983).

This notice serves as the 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 order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition 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 the APO is a sanctionable violation.

These amended final results of 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 353.28(c).

Dated: December 17, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 97-33606 Filed 12-23-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P