[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3392-3394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1077]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-428-602]


Brass Sheet & Strip From Germany; 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 3393]] 


SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and 
strip from Germany. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this 
merchandise to the United States, Wieland Werke AG (Wieland). The 
period covered is March 1, 1993, through February 28, 1994. The review 
indicates the existence of a de minimis dumping margin for this period.
    As a result of this review, the Department has preliminarily 
determined to assess an antidumping duty of 0.48 percent on merchandise 
subject to the review. We invite interested parties to comment on these 
preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 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, we initiated an 
administrative review of Wieland on April 15, 1994 (59 FR 18099), for 
the 1993-1994 period of review (POR), in accordance with 19 CFR 
353.22(c). The Department is now conducting this administrative review 
in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review 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. This review does 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 
this review 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.
    This review cover one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland. The POR is 
March 1, 1993, through February 28, 1994.

United States Price (USP)

    We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772 of 
the Act. We calculated purchase price 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.
    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 (FMV)

    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 form, coat, 
gauge, width, and alloy. The gauge and width groupings are the same as 
those used in prior reviews. The model-match methodology in this review 
was the same as that used in the last completed 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. In this review, 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 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 expenses to the home market price in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1) of the Act. We added U.S. credit expenses to FMV as 
direct selling expenses. 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, because 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.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following dumping margin exists for the period of 
review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
  Review period               Manufacturer/exporter            (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/1/93-2/28/94...  Wieland...................................      0.48%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 this 
administrative review, 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 [[Page 3394]] subject merchandise that are 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 rate for the reviewed company shall be the 
rate established in the final results of this review. If the rate for 
Wieland is de minimis in the final results of review, there will be no 
cash deposits on shipments from this firm of subject merchandise;
    (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed 
above, the cash deposit rate will continued 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 less-than-fair-value (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 this or any previous reviews by the Department, the cash deposit 
rate will be 8.87 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 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.
    This administrative review 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: January 6, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-1077 Filed 1-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P