820 F.Supp. 603 (CIT. 1993), 92-03-00208, Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. United States
|Docket Nº:||Court No. 92-03-00208.|
|Citation:||820 F.Supp. 603|
|Party Name:||MURATA MFG. CO., LTD. and Murata Erie North America, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.|
|Case Date:||April 20, 1993|
|Court:||Court of International Trade|
Donohue and Donohue, Joseph F. Donohue, Jr., Kathleen C. Inguaggiato and Daniel W. Dowe, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Civ. Div., Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Marc E. Montalbine, David W. Richardson and Michelle Behaylo, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC, of counsel, for defendant.
Pursuant to Rule 56.1 plaintiffs move for judgment upon the agency record. Plaintiffs challenge Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 Fed.Reg. 7,728 (1992), issued by the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce). This action is brought pursuant to section 516A(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2) (1988), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) (1988).
The administrative review which is the subject of this action was initiated on February 19, 1991. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 Fed.Reg. 6,621 (1991). This review covered the entries of Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., for the period December 1, 1989 through November 30, 1990. The imports covered by the review were cellular mobile telephones (CMTs), CMT transceivers, CMT control units, and certain subassemblies thereof. Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 Fed.Reg. 61,400 (1991).
Murata filed a consolidated response to Commerce's questionnaire on June 7, 1991. In its Section B response, entitled "Sales In The Home Market," Murata stated that it had listed its home market sales on a computer tape and that this list did not include sales of samples to purchasers in the home market. Sample sales were listed separately on Exhibit A-5-6 of Murata's questionnaire response. Murata's questionnaire response listed six different paired filter models sold in the United States during the period of review along with suggestions for the most similar models sold in the home market. Murata listed model KMGC104 as the paired filter sold in the home market during the period of review which was most similar to model KMGC109A.
On December 3, 1991, Commerce published the preliminary results of its review and reported a margin for Murata of 19.41 percent. Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 56 Fed.Reg. 61,400 (1991). On December 9, 1991, Murata requested a disclosure conference and hearing regarding the preliminary results.
Murata attempted to submit a case brief to Commerce on January 8, 1992. Commerce rejected this brief on January 31, 1992, indicating that the brief violated 19 C.F.R. § 353.31(a)(ii), because it "contain[ed] factual information regarding sample sales that was not submitted before the date of publication of notice of preliminary results." Pub.Doc. 26. On February 4, 1992, Murata requested Commerce to reconsider its decision and to accept the contested information for the limited purpose of corroborating the fact that a clerical error was made in the home market sales submission. Murata argued that the model KMGC104 sales it had included in its Questionnaire Response were really sample sales which should not have been matched with United States sales in the calculation of the dumping margin. Pub.Doc. 27.
On March 4, 1992, Commerce published its final results of the administrative review. Cellular Mobile Telephones and Subassemblies from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 57 Fed.Reg. 7,728 (1992) . In the Final Results, Commerce disagreed with Murata's argument that, since model KMGC104 sales were not made in quantities comparable to model KMGC109A sales, model KMGC104 sales should not be used as a basis of comparison with the U.S. model KMGC109A. Commerce also ruled that there was no evidence on the record prior to issuance of the preliminary results supporting the allegation that the KMGC104 sales were sample sales. Commerce stated further...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP