[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43372-43373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21789]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-803]
Industrial Nitrocellulose 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 of industrial nitrocellulose from Germany.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce published its
preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on industrial nitrocellulose from Germany for the period July 1,
1996, through June 30, 1997 (63 FR 17364). The Department of Commerce
has now completed its administrative review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930. For information on the assessment of
antidumping duties for the reviewed company, and for all non-reviewed
companies, see the Final Results of Review section of this notice. This
review covers imports of industrial nitrocellulose from one producer,
Wolff Walsrode AG.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. We have based our analysis on the comments
received and have changed the results from those presented in the
preliminary results of review.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 13, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Zev Primor, AD/CVD
Enforcement Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4195, and 482-4114, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on industrial
nitrocellulose from Germany for the period July 1, 1996, through June
30, 1997 (63 FR 17364). The Department has now completed this
administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (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 refer to the regulations as stated in 62 FR
27296, May 19, 1997.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of industrial
nitrocellulose (INC) from Germany. INC is a dry, white, amorphous
synthetic chemical with a nitrogen content between 10.8 and 12.2
percent, and is produced from the reaction of cellulose with nitric
acid. INC is used as a film-former in coatings, lacquers, furniture
finishes, and printing inks. The scope of this order does not include
explosive grade nitrocellulose, which has a nitrogen content of greater
than 12.2 percent. INC is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) subheading 3912.20.00. White the HTS item number is
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description
remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. The review
period is July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received comments from the respondent, Wolff
Walsrode (Wolff) and the petitioner, Hercules Incorporated.
Comment 1: Respondent argues that the Department used Wolff's
budgeted operating result from its financial statement rather than its
actual operating result in calculating Wolff's constructed export price
(CEP) profit ratio. Petitioner did not comment.
Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent that
Wolff's actual operating result should be used in calculating Wolff's
constructed export price profit ratio because the actual operating
result is the more accurate than the budgeted operating results. The
Department has corrected this error.
Comment 2: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently
included all contemporaneous home market sales in the computer
program's calculation of weighted-averaged normal values rather than
selecting the sales during the most contemporaneous month as required
by section 351.414(e)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations. Petitioner
argues that this error only affects five U.S. sales and would be
corrected in all but one instance when the Department corrects the
product coding, as requested by the respondent. See comment six.
Department's Position: The Department has utilized respondent's
computer programming language as outlined in their case brief for the
final results. The Department notes that the computer program does
calculate the weighted-average normal values during the most
contemporaneous month as required by section 351.414(e)(2)(i). However,
while the revised programming altered variable names, it did not change
the results of the program.
Comment 3: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently
failed to add U.S. freight revenue in calculating the net CEP price.
Petitioner did not comment.
Department's Position: The Department agrees with the respondent
and has corrected this error.
Comment 4: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently
failed to deduct the CEP offset from the normal value of home market
sales matched to U.S. CEP sales with no commissions. Respondent also
argues that the Department failed to deduct the commission offset from
normal value of home market sales matched to U.S. sales with
commissions. Petitioner did not comment.
Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent and
has corrected these programming errors.
Comment 5: Respondent argues that the Department should calculate
one assessment rate for transmittal to the U.S. Customs Service because
Customs cannot readily determine whether a particular importation is an
EP or CEP sale. Petitioner agrees with respondent, but wants to ensure
that the entire amount of antidumping duty calculated by the Department
is collected by Customs.
Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent that
in this instance there should be one rate per importer and has
corrected this error.
Comment 6: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly used
the SAS function, COMPRESS, in the
[[Page 43373]]
creation of the model matching hierarchy. As a result, the variables
were improperly sorted. In addition, petitioner claims that the
Department incorrectly defined three product characteristic codes in
the model match program. Respondent agrees that there is a programming
error in the model matching hierarchy, but disagrees with petitioner's
suggested solution. Respondent argues that the problem with the model
match program identified by the petitioner is not solely caused by the
COMPRESS code, but also by the Department's methodology in hand-coding
viscosity levels in the program. Respondent argues that in addition to
petitioner's recommendation, the Department must also alter the U.S.
viscosity hand-coding section of the program to result in a more
accurate model matching.
Department's Position: The Department agrees with both petitioner
and respondent that there is a programming error with three models in
the matching hierarchy. The Department has corrected the programming
errors in the model matching hierarchy and the error in the hand coding
section. However, the Department disagrees with petitioner and that the
SAS function, COMPRESS, caused an improper sorting of models. The
compress function is used to minimize space and has no impact on the
model matching hierarchy.
Comment 7: Petitioner contends that only sales to the United States
within the 12-month review period should be included in the model match
program, and that the month code should be corrected. Respondent did
not comment.
Department's Position: The Department agrees with petitioner and
has corrected these programming errors.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of the comments received we have revised our analysis
and determine that the following margins exist for the period July 1,
1996, through June 30, 1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolff Walsrode AG (WWAG)................................... 7.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between normal value and export price may vary from the
percentages stated above. We have calculated a company-specific duty
assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of
the same sales. The rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of
that particular company made during the POR. The Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of industrial nitrocellulose from Germany, 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 Act: (1) the cash deposit rates
for the reviewed company will be the rate for the firm as stated above;
(2) if the exporter is not covered in this review, or the original
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; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, previous reviews, or the original LTFV investigation, but the
manufacture is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)
for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash
deposit rate will be 3.84 percent, the ``all others'' rate from the
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
This notice 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 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 notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: August 6, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-21789 Filed 8-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
