[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16697-16699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8485]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and the
respondent, Wieland-Werke AG, the Department of Commerce is conducting
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet
and strip from Germany. This review covers one manufacturer and
exporter of the subject merchandise, Wieland-Werke AG. The period of
review is March 1, 1997, through February 28, 1998.
For the reasons provided in the Facts Available section of this
notice, we have preliminarily determined Wieland-Werke AG's antidumping
rate based on adverse facts available, assigning to this company the
highest margin applied to a respondent during any segment of this
proceeding. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service
to assess antidumping duties based on that margin.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument: (1) a statement of the issue; and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Kris Campbell, AD/CVD
Enforcement Group I, Office 2, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-4162 or (202) 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
The Department published the antidumping duty order on brass sheet
and strip from Germany on March 6, 1987. See Notice of Antidumping Duty
Order; Brass Sheet and Strip From the Federal Republic of Germany, 52
FR 6997 (March 6, 1987). On March 11, 1998, the Department published a
notice of opportunity to request an
[[Page 16698]]
administrative review of the antidumping duty order for the 1997/98
review period. See Notice of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order,
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review, 62 FR 11868 (March 11, 1998). On March 31, 1998,
the petitioners 1 and Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland) requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on brass sheet and strip from Germany for Wieland. We
published a notice of initiation of this review on April 24, 1998. See
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 63 FR 20378
(April 24, 1998). On May 5, 1998, we issued an antidumping
questionnaire to Wieland. Wieland withdrew from participation in this
review on May 11, 1998. On December 7,1998, we extended the time limit
for issuance of the preliminary results by 120 days because it was not
practicable to issue these results within the specified time period.
See Postponement of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 63 FR 67453 (December 7, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 Steel Workers of
America (AFL-CIO/CLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
In this case, Wieland informed the Department that it was
withdrawing from participation in the review on May 11, 1998. By
withdrawing its participation, Wieland impeded the instant review.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the use of total facts
available is appropriate, in accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the
Act.
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 found either in prior reviews or in the LTFV investigation. 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 either prior reviews or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation is 16.18 percent ad valorem. This rate was calculated for
a respondent in the 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
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 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 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.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists for the period March 1, 1997, through February
28, 1998:
[[Page 16699]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland................................................. 16.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of
publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be
held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, 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 a notice of
the final results of this administrative review, which will include the
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments,
not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Assessment Rate
In the event these preliminary results are made final, we intend to
assess antidumping duties on Wieland's entries at the same rate as the
dumping margin (i.e., 16.18 percent) since the margin is not a current
calculated rate for the respondent, but a rate based upon total facts
available pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
Cash Deposit
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate
for Wieland will be the rate established in the final results of this
administrative review (no deposit will be required for a zero or de
minimis margin, i.e., a margin lower than 0.5 percent); (2) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in these
reviews but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will be the company-specific rate published for the most
recent segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior 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)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these
or any prior review, the cash deposit rate will be 7.30 percent, the
all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 31, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-8485 Filed 4-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P