Antidumping: Brass sheet and strip from Germany,
[Federal Register: August 10, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 43342-43344]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au99-40]
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,‹SUP›1‹/SUP› 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 filedby 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,‹SUP›2‹/SUP› 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. 99-20557Filed8-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
