98-21380. Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 1998)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 42823-42824]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-21380]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [A-428-602]
    
    
    Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; Final Results of Antidumping 
    Duty Administrative Review
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
    review.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: On April 7, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
    published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
    antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip (BSS) from Germany (63 
    FR 16963). The review covers exports of this merchandise to the United 
    States by one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland), during 
    the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
        We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
    preliminary results of review. We received no comments on the 
    preliminary results. On May 11, 1998, Wieland withdrew from 
    participation in this review. On May 21, 1998, petitioners submitted a 
    letter commenting on Wieland's withdrawal from participation in the 
    review. Because of Wieland's withdrawal from participation, we have 
    based the margin in this determination on adverse facts available, in 
    accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
    (the Act). As adverse facts available, we have applied the highest 
    margin from any prior review of this order.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1998.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman, 
    Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, 
    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
    Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; 
    telephone: (202) 482-2704 or 482-0649, respectively.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Applicable Statute and Regulations
    
        Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Act are references 
    to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
    amendments to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, 
    unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's 
    regulations refer to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR part 353 
    (April 1, 1997).
    
    Background
    
        On April 7, 1997, the Department (the Department) published in the 
    Federal Register the preliminary results of its administrative review 
    of the antidumping duty order on BSS from Germany (63 FR 16963). The 
    antidumping duty order on BSS from Germany was published March 6, 1987 
    (52 FR 6997). The petitioners are Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller 
    Company, Outokumpu American Brass, Revere Copper Products, Inc., 
    International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 
    International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America (AFL-CIO), 
    Mechanics Educational Society of America (Local 56), and the United 
    Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC).
    
    Scope of the Review
    
        Imports covered by this review are shipments of BSS, other than 
    leaded and tinned BSS, 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 (HTS) item numbers 
    7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although the HTS item numbers are provided 
    for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the 
    scope of this order remains dispositive.
        The period of review is March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997. 
    The review involves one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland.
    
    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 at 870 (SAA). 
    To determine whether the respondent ``cooperated'' by ``acting to the 
    best of its ability'' under section 776(b), the Department considers, 
    among other facts, the accuracy and completeness of submitted 
    information and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of 
    accurate dumping margins. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 
    and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
        In this case, Wieland submitted its questionnaire responses by the 
    established deadlines and agreed to verification of its responses. 
    Then, on May 11, 1998, Wieland informed the Department that it was 
    withdrawing from participation in the review. As a result the 
    Department was not able to collect necessary missing information and 
    was unable to verify Wieland's responses. Because the Department was 
    unable to verify the submitted information, as required by section 
    782(i) of the Act, the Department had no authority to rely upon that 
    unverified information in making its determination; thus, section 
    776(a) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts available in 
    making its determination.
        Further, by withdrawing its participation, Wieland effectively 
    impeded the instant review. Under section 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the 
    Act, the Department has therefore used facts available. As noted above, 
    in selecting facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) the 
    Act, the Department may use an adverse inference if the Department 
    finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
    best of its ability to comply with requests for information. When a 
    respondent does not allow the
    
    [[Page 42824]]
    
    Department to verify submitted information, it is deemed uncooperative, 
    which constitutes grounds for applying adverse facts available. See 
    Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel 
    Wire Rod From Venezuela, 63 FR 8946, 8947 (February 23, 1998); Notice 
    of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Vector 
    Supercomputers From Japan, 62 FR 45623, 45624 (August 28, 1997); and 
    Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
    Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Romania, 61 FR 24274, 24275 
    (May 14, 1996).
        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 found either in prior 
    reviews or in the fair value investigation. See for example Viscose 
    Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Review, 63 FR 32820, 32822, June 16, 1998). In this case 
    the highest margin from either prior reviews or the fair value 
    investigation is 16.18%.
        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 (see SAA at 870). 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: 
    Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
    971 (January 7, 1997) and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
    Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final Results 
    of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 2081, 2088 (January 
    15, 1997) .
    
    Final Results of Review
    
        We have determined that the following margin exists for Wieland:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percent 
               Manufacturer/exporter                  Period         margin 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wieland-Werke AG...........................    3/1/96-2/28/97      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 less-than-fair-value (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 353.26 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 353.34(d). 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 administrative review and this notice are in accordance 
    with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
    353.22.
    
        Dated: July 31, 1998.
    Joseph A. Spetrini,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 98-21380 Filed 8-10-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
8/11/1998
Published:
08/11/1998
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review.
Document Number:
98-21380
Dates:
August 11, 1998.
Pages:
42823-42824 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-428-602
PDF File:
98-21380.pdf