[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20669-20671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10413]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20670]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-601]


Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; 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 brass sheet and 
strip From Canada. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this 
merchandise to the United States and the period January 1, 1992 through 
December 31, 1992. The review indicates the existence of dumping 
margins for this period.
    We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made 
below the foreign market value (FMV). If these 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 the United States price (USP) and the FMV.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hastings, 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) 482-4366, 482-5047, or 482-0649.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 12, 1987, the Department published in the Federal 
Register (52 FR 1217) the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and 
strip from Canada. Based on timely requests for review, on March 8, 
1993, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated an 
administrative review of Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (Wolverine), for 
the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 (58 FR 12931). The 
Department is now conducting this administrative review in accordance 
with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff 
Act).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are brass sheet and strip, other 
than leaded and tin brass sheet and strip. 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. Products whose chemical composition is defined by other 
C.D.A. or U.N.S. series are not covered by this order.
    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 
finished thicknesses or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-
reels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included.
    During the review period such merchandise was classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for 
Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order 
remains dispositive. This review covers one Canadian manufacturer/
exporter, Wolverine, and the period January 1, 1992 through December 
31, 1992.

USP

    We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772 of 
the Tariff Act. We calculated purchase price based on delivered, duty-
paid prices. In accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we 
made deductions for movement expenses and customs duty. Movement 
expenses included fees for brokerage and handling, and U.S. and foreign 
inland freight.
    When comparisons were made to home market sales, we adjusted USP 
for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in 
Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994 (Silicomanganese).
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

FMV

    The Department used home market price to calculate FMV, as defined 
in section 773 of the Tariff Act. Because the home market was viable, 
we compared U.S. sales with sales of such merchandise in the home 
market.
    FMV was based on packed, delivered prices to unrelated home market 
purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for home market 
credit, post-sale inland freight, U.S. credit costs, GST, and U.S. 
packing costs.
    We calculated FMV using monthly weighted-average prices of brass 
sheet and strip having the same characteristics as to alloy, product 
code, width group, and gauge group (as was done in earlier 
proceedings).
    We also adjusted the amount of the home market GST included in FMV 
in accordance with our methodology in Silicomanganese.
    No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Cost Test

    Since the information supporting petitioners' allegation provided 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect home market sales below cost, 
we investigated whether Wolverine sold such merchandise in the home 
market at prices below the cost of production (COP), in accordance with 
section 773(b) of the Tariff Act. 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.
    We requested COP information on an alloy-specific basis because we 
have determined that alloy is a primary component and a major 
differentiating factor of brass sheet and strip products. The Court of 
International Trade (CIT) upheld the Department's use of alloy-specific 
information in Hussey Copper, Ltd., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 
94-81 (May 16, 1994). In response to our request, Wolverine reported 
COP as the sum of costs for materials, labor, factory overhead, 
selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and packing for 
each product code. Wolverine's product code, however, is a general 
categorization which does not distinguish between various alloys, 
gauges, and widths. Moreover, Wolverine did not suggest any allocation 
methodology that would result in alloy-specific data for the 
fabrication and packing costs for the class or kind of subject 
merchandise. As a result, we used, as partial best information 
available, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, the 
fabrication and packing cost portions of petitioners' data which were 
submitted in the sales-below-cost allegation. Since metal costs were 
maintained on an alloy-specific basis, we did use respondent's 
submitted metal prices from its daily metal price list for this element 
and its company data to compute SG&A expenses. [[Page 20671]] 
    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.
    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 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. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of 
Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (56 FR 
31693, July 11, 1991).
    Wolverine has not submitted information indicating that any of its 
sales below cost were made at prices which would have permitted 
``recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the 
normal course of trade,'' as required by section 773(b)(2) of the 
Tariff Act. Therefore, we have no basis for concluding that the costs 
of production of such sales have been recovered within a reasonable 
period of time. As a result of our investigation, we disregarded 
Wolverine's below-cost sales made over an extended period of time.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(2), we used constructed value 
(CV) as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were insufficient 
sales of the comparison home market model at or above the COP. We 
calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. CV 
includes the cost of materials and fabrication for the exported 
merchandise, plus SG&A expenses, profit, and packing. Because the 
respondent did not provide alloy-specific information on, nor any 
allocation of, fabrication and packing costs, we used the data supplied 
by petitioners for these cost factors in their submission of August 29, 
1993. In our calculation of the SG&A expenses, we computed the actual 
percentage of costs using figures supplied by the respondent in its COP 
response. We multiplied that actual figure by the cost of manufacturing 
(COM). The COM is the sum of the cost of materials, which was supplied 
by the respondent, and the fabrication costs, which were supplied by 
the petitioners. We used the computed SG&A expenses since they were 
greater than the statutory minimum of 10 percent. Because the 
respondent's reported profit was less than eight percent of the COM 
plus general expenses, for profit we used the statutory minimum of 
eight percent.
    For those models that had sufficient above-cost sales, we 
calculated FMV using home market prices to unrelated purchasers as 
described above.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily 
determine that the following margin exists for the period January 1, 
1992 through December 31, 1992:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine...................................................       24.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date 
of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days 
of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after 
the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case 
briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted 
no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs 
and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those 
comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final 
results of this administrative review, including the results of its 
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
    The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated 
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
the 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 by section 
751(a)(1) of the Tarriff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed company will be that rate established in the final results of 
this 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, a prior review, or the original 
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the 
cash deposit rate will be the rate established in 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, the cash deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the all others rate 
established in the LTFV investigation (51 FR 44319).
    This notice also 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 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: April 19, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-10413 Filed 4-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M