[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42845-42847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20441]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-475-059]
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy; 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 pressure
sensitive plastic tape from Italy. The review covers 2 manufacturers/
exporters of the subject merchandise shipped to the United States
during the period October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV). If the 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
United States price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17, 1995.
[[Page 42846]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Peterson or Thomas Futtner, 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) 482-4195 or 482-3814,
respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 21, 1977, the Treasury Department published in the
Federal Register (42 FR 56110) the antidumping finding on pressure
sensitive plastic tape (PSPT) from Italy. On October 7, 1994, the
Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review'' (59 FR 194). On October 24, 1993, the
petitioner, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), requested
that we conduct an administrative review of N.A.R., S.p.A. (NAR) for
the period October 1, 1993, through September 30, 1994. On October 13,
1994, a respondent, Autoadesivi Magri s.r.l. (Magri) also requested
that we conduct an administrative review. We published a notice of
initiation of the antidumping administrative review on November 14,
1994.
The Department is conducting the administrative review in
accordance with section 751 of the Act.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of PSPT measuring over
1\3/8\ inches in width and not exceeding 4 mils in thickness. During
the period of review (POR), the above described PSPT was classified
under HTS subheadings 3919.90.20 and 3919.90.50. Although the HTS
subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.
Use of Best Information Available (BIA)
In its February 27, 1995, response, Magri reported that its home
market was not viable as a basis for FMV. It therefore reported third
country sales. Based on information gathered while on verification, the
Department determined that errors in Magri's reporting of the volume
and value of home market sales had materially distorted its viability
analysis, i.e., the home market was in fact viable and should have been
used as the basis of foreign market value in accordance with the
Department's normal practice (19 CFR 353.46). Although Magri attempted
to respond to all the Department's requests for information, the data
submitted were unverifiable. In particular, at verification in Italy we
discovered that approximately 27.6% of total German sales for 1993 were
unreported and 23% of German sales for 1994 were unreported. Finally,
significant discrepancies and errors in Magri's sales listings were
identified, thereby making it impossible to verify several of Magri's
claimed adjustments. For a detailed analysis supporting these
conclusions, see Magri's verification report dated July 11, 1995. Thus
pursuant to 776(b) of the statute, the Department must resort to BIA.
As for NAR, it failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire.
Thus pursuant to 776(c) of the statute, the Department must resort to
BIA.
In deciding what to use as BIA, the Department's regulations
provide that the Department may take into account whether a party
refuses to provide requested information (19 CFR 353.37(b)). Thus, the
Department determines, on a case-by-case basis, what constitutes BIA.
For the purpose of these preliminary results, we applied the following
two-tier BIA analysis where we were unable to use a company's response
for purposes of determining a dumping margin (see Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Antifriction Bearings and
Parts Thereof from France, et al., 58 FR 39739, July 26, 1993):
1. When a company refuses to cooperate with the Department or
otherwise significantly impedes these proceedings, we used as BIA
the higher of (1) the highest of the rates found for any firm for
the same class or kind of merchandise in the same country of origin
in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior
administrative reviews; or (2) the highest rate found in this review
for any firm for the same class or kind of merchandise in the same
country of origin.
2. When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for
information and, substantially cooperates in verification, but fails
to provide the information requested in a timely manner or in the
form required or was unable to substantiate it, we used as BIA the
higher of (1) the highest rate even applicable to the firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from either the LTFV investigation
or a prior administrative review, or if the firm has never before
been investigated or reviewed, the ``all others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation; or (2) the highest calculated rate in this review for
the class or kind of merchandise for any firm from the same country
of origin.
Pursuant to 776(b) of the Act, which provides for BIA when the
Department is unable to verify the accuracy of the information
submitted, we are applying second-tier, cooperative BIA to Magri's
entries. This rate represents the highest rate ever applied to Magri in
previous antidumping proceedings.
Since NAR failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire
pursuant to 776(c) of the Act, we are applying first-tier, punitive BIA
to its entries. This is the highest calculated rate from a prior
administrative review.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period October 1, 1993, through
September 30, 1994:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autoadesivi Magri.......................................... 12.66%
N.A.R. S.p.A............................................... 12.66%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue
appraisement instructions for each exporter directly to the U.S.
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 for by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed firm
will be that firm's rate established in the final results of this
administrative 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, or the original 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) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters not previously reviewed will be 12.66
percent, the ``new shipper'' rate established in the first notice of
final results of administrative review published by the Department (48
FR 35686, August 5, 1983).
[[Page 42847]]
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the
date of publication of this notice, and may request a hearing within 10
days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be
held as early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days
after the date of publication or the first workday thereafter. Case
briefs or other written comments from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues raised
in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date
of publication. The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in any
such written comments.
This notice 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 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 or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of the APO is a sanctionable
violation.
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: August 4, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-20441 Filed 8-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
