[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20669-20671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10413]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20670]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-601]
Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; 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: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and
strip From Canada. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this
merchandise to the United States and the period January 1, 1992 through
December 31, 1992. The review indicates the existence of dumping
margins for this period.
We have preliminarily determined that U.S. 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: April 27, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hastings, Chip Hayes, or John
Kugelman, 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) 482-4366, 482-5047, or 482-0649.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 12, 1987, the Department published in the Federal
Register (52 FR 1217) the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and
strip from Canada. Based on timely requests for review, on March 8,
1993, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated an
administrative review of Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (Wolverine), for
the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 (58 FR 12931). The
Department is now conducting this administrative review in accordance
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff
Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are brass sheet and strip, other
than leaded and tin brass sheet and strip. The chemical composition of
the covered products is currently defined in the Copper Development
Association (C.D.A.) 200 Series or the Unified Numbering System
(U.N.S.) C2000. Products whose chemical composition is defined by other
C.D.A. or U.N.S. series are not covered by this order.
The physical dimensions of the products covered by this review are
brass sheet and strip of solid rectangular cross section over 0.006
inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in
finished thicknesses or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-
reels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included.
During the review period such merchandise was classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00.
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for
Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order
remains dispositive. This review covers one Canadian manufacturer/
exporter, Wolverine, and the period January 1, 1992 through December
31, 1992.
USP
We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772 of
the Tariff Act. We calculated purchase price based on delivered, duty-
paid prices. In accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we
made deductions for movement expenses and customs duty. Movement
expenses included fees for brokerage and handling, and U.S. and foreign
inland freight.
When comparisons were made to home market sales, we adjusted USP
for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994 (Silicomanganese).
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
FMV
The Department used home market price to calculate FMV, as defined
in section 773 of the Tariff Act. Because the home market was viable,
we compared U.S. sales with sales of such merchandise in the home
market.
FMV was based on packed, delivered prices to unrelated home market
purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for home market
credit, post-sale inland freight, U.S. credit costs, GST, and U.S.
packing costs.
We calculated FMV using monthly weighted-average prices of brass
sheet and strip having the same characteristics as to alloy, product
code, width group, and gauge group (as was done in earlier
proceedings).
We also adjusted the amount of the home market GST included in FMV
in accordance with our methodology in Silicomanganese.
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Cost Test
Since the information supporting petitioners' allegation provided
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect home market sales below cost,
we investigated whether Wolverine sold such merchandise in the home
market at prices below the cost of production (COP), in accordance with
section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. In determining whether to disregard
home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether
such sales were made in substantial quantities over an extended period
of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal
course of trade.
We requested COP information on an alloy-specific basis because we
have determined that alloy is a primary component and a major
differentiating factor of brass sheet and strip products. The Court of
International Trade (CIT) upheld the Department's use of alloy-specific
information in Hussey Copper, Ltd., et al. v. United States, Slip Op.
94-81 (May 16, 1994). In response to our request, Wolverine reported
COP as the sum of costs for materials, labor, factory overhead,
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and packing for
each product code. Wolverine's product code, however, is a general
categorization which does not distinguish between various alloys,
gauges, and widths. Moreover, Wolverine did not suggest any allocation
methodology that would result in alloy-specific data for the
fabrication and packing costs for the class or kind of subject
merchandise. As a result, we used, as partial best information
available, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, the
fabrication and packing cost portions of petitioners' data which were
submitted in the sales-below-cost allegation. Since metal costs were
maintained on an alloy-specific basis, we did use respondent's
submitted metal prices from its daily metal price list for this element
and its company data to compute SG&A expenses. [[Page 20671]]
When less than 10 percent of the home market sales of a model were
at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any sales of that model.
When 10 percent or more, but not more than 90 percent, of the home
market sales of a particular model were determined to be below cost, we
excluded the below-cost home market sales from our calculation of FMV,
provided that these below-cost home market sales were made over an
extended period of time. When more than 90 percent of the home market
sales of a particular model were made below cost over an extended
period of time, we disregarded all home market sales of that model in
our calculation of FMV.
To determine whether sales below cost had been made over an
extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which
sales below cost occurred for a particular model to the number of
months in which that model was sold. If the model was sold in fewer
than three months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there
were below-cost sales of that model in each month sold. If a model was
sold in three or more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales
unless there were sales below cost in at least three of the months in
which the model was sold. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of
Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (56 FR
31693, July 11, 1991).
Wolverine has not submitted information indicating that any of its
sales below cost were made at prices which would have permitted
``recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the
normal course of trade,'' as required by section 773(b)(2) of the
Tariff Act. Therefore, we have no basis for concluding that the costs
of production of such sales have been recovered within a reasonable
period of time. As a result of our investigation, we disregarded
Wolverine's below-cost sales made over an extended period of time.
In accordance with section 773(a)(2), we used constructed value
(CV) as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were insufficient
sales of the comparison home market model at or above the COP. We
calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. CV
includes the cost of materials and fabrication for the exported
merchandise, plus SG&A expenses, profit, and packing. Because the
respondent did not provide alloy-specific information on, nor any
allocation of, fabrication and packing costs, we used the data supplied
by petitioners for these cost factors in their submission of August 29,
1993. In our calculation of the SG&A expenses, we computed the actual
percentage of costs using figures supplied by the respondent in its COP
response. We multiplied that actual figure by the cost of manufacturing
(COM). The COM is the sum of the cost of materials, which was supplied
by the respondent, and the fabrication costs, which were supplied by
the petitioners. We used the computed SG&A expenses since they were
greater than the statutory minimum of 10 percent. Because the
respondent's reported profit was less than eight percent of the COM
plus general expenses, for profit we used the statutory minimum of
eight percent.
For those models that had sufficient above-cost sales, we
calculated FMV using home market prices to unrelated purchasers as
described above.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily
determine that the following margin exists for the period January 1,
1992 through December 31, 1992:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine................................................... 24.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the first business day thereafter. Case
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those
comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
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 the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tarriff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the
reviewed company will be that rate established in the final results of
this 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 prior review, or the original
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate established in 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 8.10 percent, the all others rate
established in the LTFV investigation (51 FR 44319).
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 occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This 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
353.22.
Dated: April 19, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-10413 Filed 4-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
