[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2076-2078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-347]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]


Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty 
administrative reviews.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and 
strip from Germany. The reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter of this 
merchandise to the United States, Wieland Werke AG (Wieland). The 
periods covered are March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991, March 1, 
1991 through February 29, 1992, and March 1, 1992 through February 28, 
1993. The reviews indicate the existence of dumping margins for these 
periods.
    As result of these reviews, the Department has preliminarily 
determined to assess antidumping duties equal to the differences 
between United States price (USP) and foreign market value (FMV). We 
invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam, Chip Hayes, or John 
Kugelman, 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) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 6, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(52 FR 6997) the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from 
Germany. Based on timely requests for review, in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(c), we initiated administrative reviews of Wieland on March 8, 
1991 (56 FR 9937), March 5, 1992, (57 FR 7910) and on March 12, 1993 
(58 FR 13584) for the 1990-1991, 1991-1992, and 1992-1993 periods of 
review (POR's) respectively. The Department is now conducting these 
administrative reviews in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the Act). [[Page 2077]] 

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by these reviews are brass sheet and strip, other 
than leaded and tin brass sheet and strip, from Germany. The chemical 
composition of the products under review is currently defined in the 
Copper Development Association (C.D.A.) 200 Series or the Unified 
Numbering System (U.N.S.) C20000 series. These reviews do not cover 
products the chemical compositions of which are defined by other C.D.A. 
or U.N.S. series. The physical dimensions of the products covered by 
these reviews are brass sheet and strip of solid rectangular cross 
section over 0.006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188 inches (4.8 
millimeters) in gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels 
(traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included. The 
merchandise is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item 
numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.20. The HTS item numbers are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.
    These reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland. The POR's 
are March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991, March 1, 1991 through 
February 29, 1992, and March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993.

United States Price

    We based USP on purchase price (PP) and exporter's sales price 
(ESP), as appropriate, in accordance with section 772 of the Act. We 
calculated PP and ESP based on C.I.F., duty-paid prices, delivered 
either to independent U.S. warehouses or to the customers' premises. In 
accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we made deductions for 
movement expenses and customs duty.
    For ESP transactions, we also made deductions for U.S. movement 
expenses, direct selling expenses, commissions, where appropriate, and 
indirect selling expenses.
    We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as 
outlined in Siliconmanganese From Venezuela; Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994) 
(Siliconmanganese).
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Foreign Market Value

    Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third 
country sales, we determined that the home market was viable. 
Therefore, in accordance with section 773 of the Act, we compared U.S. 
sales with sales of such or similar merchandise in the home market.
    We calculated FMV using monthly weighted-average prices of sales of 
brass sheet and strip having the same characteristics as to alloy, 
gauge, width, temper, form, and coating. The gauge and width groupings 
are the same as those used in prior reviews. The model-match 
methodology in these reviews was the same as that used in the last 
administrative review (August 22, 1986 through February 29, 1988), 
except the Department included alloy-specific information for each 
transaction, instead of assigning sales into one of two alloy grade 
groups having above or below 70% copper content. This added specificity 
brings the model-match methodology into conformance with other orders 
on brass sheet and strip.
    On January 5, 1994, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 
in The Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland 
Cement v. United States, No. 93-1239, held that the Department could 
not deduct home market movement charges from FMV pursuant to its 
inherent power to fill in gaps in the antidumping statute. Accordingly, 
we now adjust for home market movement expenses under the circumstance-
of-sale (COS) provision of 19 CFR 353.56 and the ESP offset provision 
of 19 CFR 353.56(b) (1) and (2), as appropriate. In these reviews, home 
market movement expenses were incurred between factory and customer, 
after the sale, and were therefore treated as direct COS deductions.
    FMV was based on packed, delivered prices to unrelated customers in 
the home market, with appropriate deductions from the home market price 
for inland freight and insurance, credit expenses, home market packing, 
and rebates. We added U.S. packing to the home market price in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. For PP sales we added 
credit expenses to FMV, as a direct selling expense. For ESP sales we 
made adjustments to the home market price for indirect selling 
expenses, which we limited to the amount of indirect selling expenses 
in the United States, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2). In 
addition, we included in FMV the amount of value-added taxes collected 
in the home market in accordance with our practice as outlined in 
Siliconmanganese. We also made adjustments for differences in 
merchandise.
    Wieland claimed that ``an adjustment should be made for the per 
unit differences in processing expenses associated with different order 
size.'' However, Wieland did not demonstrate to what extent these 
claimed adjustments affected price, or how they were related to the 
transactions under review. Accordingly, since we are not ``satisfied 
that the amount of any price differential is wholly or partly due to 
that difference in quantities,'' (19 CFR 353.55), we disallowed this 
claimed adjustment.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Cost Test

    Because allegations by petitioners in the 1990-1991 administrative 
review provided the Department with reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that sales in that period had been made below cost, in 
accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, we investigated whether 
Wieland sold such or similar merchandise in the home market at prices 
below the cost of production (COP). In determining whether to disregard 
home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether 
such sales were made in substantial quantities over an extended period 
of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal 
course of trade.
    COP was reported as the sum of costs for materials, labor, variable 
costs of manufacturing, factory overhead, selling and general expenses, 
net interest, and packing. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we 
compared COP to home market prices net of discounts.
    In accordance with our normal practice, when less than 10 percent 
of the home market sales of a model were at prices below the COP, we 
did not disregard any sales of that model. When 10 percent or more, but 
not more than 90 percent, of the home market sales of a particular 
model were determined to be below cost, we excluded the below-cost home 
market sales from our calculation of FMV, provided that these below-
cost home market sales were made over an extended period of time. When 
more than 90 percent of the home market sales of a particular model 
were made below cost over an extended period of time, we disregarded 
all home market sales of that model in our calculation of FMV. See, for 
example, Mechanical Transfer Presses from Japan, Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958.
    To determine whether sales below cost had been made over an 
extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which 
sales below cost occurred for a particular model to the number of 
months in which that model was sold. If the model was sold 
[[Page 2078]] in fewer than three months, we did not disregard below-
cost sales unless there were below-cost sales of that model in each 
month sold. If a model was sold in three or more months, we did not 
disregard below-cost sales unless there were sales below cost in at 
least three of the months in which the model was sold.
    We compared individual home market prices with the monthly COP. We 
tested the home market prices on the basis of the six physical criteria 
used for product matches, and found that, for certain models, between 
10 and 90 percent of home market sales were made at below-COP prices. 
Since the respondent provided no indication that these sales were at 
prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time and in the normal course of trade, we disregarded the 
below-cost sales for those models, if those sales were made over an 
extended period of time. We used the remaining above-cost sales for 
comparison purposes.
    For certain models, we used constructed value (CV) as the basis for 
FMV when there were no contemporaneous home market sales of such or 
similar merchandise.
    We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We 
included the cost of materials, labor, and factory overhead in our 
calculations. The respondent reported selling, general, and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) greater than the statutory minimum of 10 
percent of the cost of manufacture (COM). Therefore, we used the 
respondent's reported SG&A expenses. The respondent reported actual 
profit greater than the statutory minimum of eight percent of the sum 
of the COM and SG&A. Therefore, we used the respondent's reported 
profit amounts. We adjusted the CV for warranty and credit expenses, 
and the lesser of home market indirect selling expenses or U.S. 
commissions.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Reviews

    As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following dumping margins exist for the periods of 
review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
         Review period              Manufacturer/exporter      (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/1/90-2/28/91................  Wieland......................      3.33 
3/1/91-2/29/92................  Wieland......................      2.07 
3/1/92-2/28/93................  Wieland......................      0.36 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 10 days of 
publication of this notice. Any hearing will be held 44 days after the 
date of publication or the first workday thereafter. Interested parties 
may submit case briefs within 30 days of the publication date 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 these 
administrative reviews, which will include the results of its analyses 
of issues raised in any such case briefs or hearing.
    The following deposit requirements shall be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise that are entered or withdrawn from 
warehouse for consumption on or after the publication date of the final 
results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section 
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
company shall be those rates established in the final results of these 
reviews; (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 these reviews, a prior review, or the original 
LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 
shall 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 previous reviews by 
the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 8.87%, 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 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the 
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during these review periods. 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.
    These administrative reviews 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: December 23, 1994.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
[FR Doc. 95-347 Filed 1-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P