[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43342-43344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20557]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brass
Sheet and Strip From Germany
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1999.
SUMMARY: On April 6, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on brass sheet and strip from Germany. This review covers
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States by one
manufacturer/exporter, Wieland-Werke AG, during the period March 1,
1997 through February 28, 1998. Due to the respondent's withdrawal from
participation in this review, we have based its margin on adverse facts
available, applying the highest margin for any company during any
segment of this proceeding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Kris Campbell, AD/CVD
Enforcement, Group II, Office 5, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4162 or 482-3813, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
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 Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations are to the regulations provided in 19 CFR
Part 351 (1998).
Background
On April 6, 1999, the Department published the preliminary results
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass
sheet and strip from Germany. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany, 64 FR
16697 (April 6, 1999) (preliminary results). As stated in the
preliminary results, Weiland-Werke AG (Weiland) withdrew from
participation in this review on May 11, 1998, and accordingly received
a preliminary rate based on adverse facts available (i.e., the highest
rate for any company during any segment of the proceeding). On May 6,
1999, we received a case brief from domestic interested
parties,1 requesting that the Department continue to assign
Weiland the adverse rate selected in the preliminary results (16.18
percent). Additionally, since Wieland failed to cooperate by not
placing any information on the record, the petitioners argued that the
Department should draw the adverse inference that duty absorption
occurred on all of Wieland's sales of the subject merchandise during
the period of review. We received no comments on the preliminary
results from Wieland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The case brief was filed by petitioners Hussey Copper, Ltd.;
Outokumpu American Brass; Revere Copper Products, Inc.;
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; and
United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC). Also named as
interested parties were Olin Corporation--Brass Group and United
Auto Workers (Local 2367).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Review
This review covers shipments of brass sheet and strip, other than
leaded and tinned, from Germany. 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; this review does not cover products the chemical
compositions of which are defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. In
physical dimensions, the products covered by this review have a solid
rectangular cross section over 0.006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through
0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished thickness or gauge,
regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse wound), and cut-
to-length products are included. The merchandise is currently
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although the HTSUS item
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
Department's written description of the scope of this order remains
dispositive.
Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping
statute, or provides information that cannot be verified, the
Department shall use facts available in reaching the applicable
determination.
In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference
if the Department finds that a party has failed to cooperate by not
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for
information. See the Statement of Administrative Action to the URAA at
870 (SAA).
On May 11, 1998, Wieland informed the Department that it was
withdrawing from participation in the review. By withdrawing its
participation, Wieland impeded the instant review. Therefore, in
accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act and consistent with our
preliminary results, we determine that
[[Page 43343]]
the use of total facts available is appropriate for the final results.
As noted above, in selecting facts otherwise available, pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an adverse inference
if the Department finds that an interested party, such as Wieland in
this case, failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability
to comply with requests for information. Consistent with Department
practice in cases where a respondent fails to cooperate to the best of
its ability, and in keeping with section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as
adverse facts available we have applied a margin based on the highest
margin from any prior segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Viscose
Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland, 63 FR 32820, 32822 (June 16, 1998)
(final administrative review). In this case, the highest margin from
any prior segment of the proceeding is 16.18 percent ad valorem,
calculated for a respondent in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation.
Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate,
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is described in the SAA (at 870) as
``[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.''
The SAA further provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. Thus, to corroborate secondary information,
to the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability
and relevance of the information used. However, unlike other types of
information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no
independent sources for calculated dumping margins. The only source for
margins is an administrative determination. Thus, in an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as total adverse facts available a
calculated dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is
not necessary to question the reliability of the margin from that time
period (i.e., the Department can normally be satisfied that the
information has probative value and that it has complied with the
corroboration requirements of section 776(c) of the Act). See, e.g.,
Elemental Sulphur from Canada, 62 FR 971 (January 7, 1997) (preliminary
results of administrative review) and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al., 62 FR
2081, 2088 (January 15, 1997) (final results of administrative review).
With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as to
whether there are circumstances that would render a margin
inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is
not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g.,
Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the
Department disregarded the highest margin for use as adverse facts
available because the margin was based on another company's
uncharacteristic business expense, resulting in an unusually high
margin). In this review, we are not aware of any circumstances that
would render the use of the margin selected for Wieland as
inappropriate.
Duty Absorption
On May 21, 1998, the petitioners requested that the Department
determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter
or producer subject to this administrative review, in the event that
the subject merchandise was sold during this period of review in the
United States through an importer affiliated with Weiland.
Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that, if requested, the
Department will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed
by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if the subject
merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated
importer. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act authorizes this inquiry during
an administrative review initiated two years or four years after
publication of an order. For transition orders as defined in section
751(c)(6)(C) of the Act (i.e., antidumping orders in effect as of
January 1, 1995), section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations
provides that the Department will make such a determination for any
administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998.
The order in this case is a transition order, which went into
effect in 1987. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and
Strip from the Federal Republic of Germany, 52 FR 6997 (March 6, 1987).
Because this review was initiated in 1998,2 and the
petitioners made a timely request for a duty absorption determination
(i.e., within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of
initiation of this review), we find that the regulatory requirements
for a duty absorption determination have been met. See 19 CFR
351.213(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 63
FR 20378 (April 24, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their May 6, 1999, case brief, the petitioners argued that since
Wieland failed to cooperate by not placing any information on the
record, the Department should draw the adverse inference that duty
absorption occurred on all of Wieland's sales of the subject
merchandise during the period of review. As explained above, we have
determined that a margin exists for Wieland based on adverse facts
available. Lacking other information, we find that duty absorption
exists on all of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise made by
Wieland. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590, 35601 (July 1, 1999); Extruded
Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12752, 12756 (March 16, 1998).
Final Results of Review
We have determined that the following margin exists for Wieland for
the period March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG........................................... 16.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these
final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the
cash deposit rate for Wieland will be the rate stated above; (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
[[Page 43344]]
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 or any previous review conducted
by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 7.30 percent, the
``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during the 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 351.304. Timely written notification of
the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 4, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20557 Filed 8-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
