Goss seeks relief for a competitor

By: Jim Rosenberg Press maker's Puzzling petition seeks partial rev ocation of antidumping duties

For reasons it will not disclose, Goss Graphic Systems wants to remove U.S. antidumping duties from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries presses.
In the midst of a "liquidity crunch" that delayed projects and sent it to a U.S. court for bankruptcy protection, Goss petitioned another branch of the government ostensibly to help Mitsubishi. If the government agrees, Mitsubishi could save tens of millions in duties believed related to a major press installation at The Washington Post. Ironically, Mitsubishi outbid Goss for that very project in 1995, which in turn led Goss ? then owned by Rockwell International ? to seek protection from the government against alleged dumping.
To observers and competitors in the printing business, Goss' move appears to portend some kind of deal between the two printing press makers. Neither, however, would address that question. Nor would anyone involved admit that the installation at issue was that at The Washington Post, the only North American site that fits the description used by Goss in its petition to remove the duties.
"We can't comment on any Department of Commerce investigations," said Barbara L. Gora, Goss' marketing director. "That would be inappropriate."
At Mitsubishi press sales affiliate, MLP U.S.A. Inc., Lincolnshire, Ill., Executive Vice President Takishi Uichi said he is unaware of "what is going on on the newspaper side. I don't know what Goss is up to." Though closely involved in the Post sale while still based in Japan, Uichi said his "assignment changed dramatically" after arriving in the United States, where he is "totally involved with the commercial press business."
"There's little room for doubt it's anything other than The Washington Post system," said Yoshihiro Saito, a lawyer for Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho Ltd. (TKS), a Mitsubishi and Goss competitor in Japan and the United States. Respondents to the original action, said the attorney, who is with Seattle-based Perkins Coie LLP, "suspect a behind-the-scenes deal between Mitsubishi Heavy and Goss."
Goss made the request in a letter to the Commerce Department in late May. In late July, the Commerce Department made public the Goss request, just days before the company announced it was filing for bankruptcy.
TKS' Saito speculated that Mitsubishi may be looking to the international trade equivalent of an out-of-court settlement by paying Goss to drop its support for duties rather than paying the duties to the U.S. Customs Service. Saito said that payment, though substantial, could prove less than what the government might impose. Hence, Goss gets money, which it needs, and Mitsubishi may end up paying less to Goss than it would have had to fork over to Uncle Sam.
Saito wonders if such an arrangement doesn't skirt the purpose of antidumping law, but he concedes that such deals are not illegal. "It's kind of a new thing ? part of the current controversy on trade law," he said. "If this is condoned in this case, it could become practice," leading domestic producers to file "frivolous" complaints.
The duties on German and Japanese doublewide presses resulted from Commerce Department and International Trade Commission investigations undertaken when Goss' predecessor company, Rockwell Graphic Systems, complained in 1996 that foreign manufacturers were selling presses in the United States below fair market value.
The Washington Post contract for eight presses from Mitsubishi sparked Rockwell's request for the investigation of press dumping (E&P, Aug. 24. 1996, p. 38). Now Goss is asking for reconsideration of the antidumping duty order (retroactive to September 1996).
"We don't know what Goss is up to," remarked Mike Clurman, the Post's production vice president. He said the Post was not involved, even indirectly "in any of these discussions," was never approached, and "literally played no role in this."
"This" can only be surmised from a July 20 Commerce Department notice in the Federal Register. Commerce agreed to Goss' request for a "changed circumstances review" on the big presses and their components. Goss said it no longer wishes to maintain the antidumping duty order for complete, 75,000-copy-per-hour tower presses with passive-feed, non-anilox keyless inkers, 22-inch cutoff, 50-inch web width, folder with three-high double formers, two-arm, core-driven reel-tension-pasters that accommodate 50-inch-diameter newsprint rolls, and computerized controls.
In its May letter, Goss requested a quick decision from the Commerce Department. Commerce declined, calling the requested expedited review and preliminary determination "inappropriate" and saying it would investigate and may require more "information regarding the basis for Goss' request."
Final results of its review are expected early next year. In the meantime, the Commerce Department added, the current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated duties on all subject merchandise remains in force.
In a separate action dating from an earlier request by TKS and Mitsubishi, the department published preliminary rates for duties Oct. 12 that if adopted in its final results will call for assessment of 55.28% antidumping duties on Mitsubishi for the period from Sept. 5, 1996, to Aug. 31, 1998 (down from the earliest preliminary finding of 62.9% in 1996), but none on TKS for the period from Sept. 1, 1997, to Aug. 31, 1998, owing to findings that the former made U.S. sales "below normal value" while the latter did not.
The department concluded that antidumping duties imposed during the period in question were not "absorbed" by a customer or an importer unaffiliated with Mitsubishi. Rather than proving otherwise, as requested, said the department's Oct. 12 notice, Mitsubishi argued that the inquiry's purpose ? finding out if the company's conduct changed after the duty was imposed ? did not apply because its only sale under review (to the Post) was made before the duty was ordered.
The department, however, found that imports during the period ? not the sale date ? are relevant, and that based on "contractual information on the record ? we cannot conclude that the unaffiliated purchaser ? will pay the ultimately assessed duty." (See related story, Page 44.)

(Editor & Publisher Web Site: http://www.mediainfo.com) [Caption]
(copyright: Editor & Publisher October 16, 1999) [Caption]