[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 144 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38541-38546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18397]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38542]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]
Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 6, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the preliminary results of its 1990-1993
administrative reviews of brass sheet and strip from Germany. The
reviews cover exports of this merchandise to the United States by one
manufacturer/exporter, Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland), during the periods
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 the 1990-91 and 1991-92
periods, and de minimis margins for the 1992-93 period.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we
have adjusted Wieland's margins for these final results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam 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 January 6, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 2076) the preliminary results of its 1990-91, 1991-92,
and 1992-93 administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on
brass sheet and strip from Germany (52 FR 6997, March 6, 1987).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
The Department has now completed these administrative reviews in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to
the Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Reviews
Imports covered by these reviews are sales or entries of brass
sheet and strip, other than leaded and tinned 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 merchandise is currently
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.
The review periods are:
March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991 (fourth review);
March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992 (fifth review);
March 1, 1992 through February 28, 1993 (sixth review).
The reviews cover one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland.
Analysis of Comments Received
We received case and rebuttal briefs from Wieland and from the
petitioners, 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 Steelworkers of America. Unless
otherwise noted, the comments below pertain to all three reviews.
Model-Matching Methodology
Comment 1: Wieland disputes the Department's use of specific alloy
grades in matching U.S. to home market sales. Wieland would have the
Department use only two classes of alloys, above or below 75 percent
copper content, instead of using exact alloy grades. The respondent
states that the exact-alloy comparison method which we used in the
preliminary results is a change from the method used in the prior
review.
The respondent further alleges that the Department used the exact-
alloy method in order to conform the model-matching criteria with other
orders, and that in so doing the Department ignored record evidence
demonstrating that Wieland's U.S. sales cannot be ``appropriately
matched'' to home market sales of identical alloys. Wieland claims that
``using alloy groups * * * provides the most practical means of
achieving reasonable comparisons''.
Wieland claims that our approach is contrary to Department practice
in other cases involving brass sheet and strip, because the Department
failed, in these reviews, to determine the appropriate matching
criteria on the basis of the specific nature of Wieland's sales. The
respondent alleges that by relying on specific alloy grades rather than
using Wieland's two alloy groups, the Department ``fails to take
account of the nature of Wieland's sales''. Wieland does not make clear
how our approach neglects to take account of the nature of its sales,
but implies that its sales are made more often on the basis of whether
products are above or below 75 percent in copper content than on the
basis of exact alloys.
The respondent also asserts that, since certain other model-
matching criteria, namely gauge and width, are grouped by classes,
alloys should also be grouped.
The petitioners note in rebuttal that there is no industry standard
to distinguish alloys for high copper content (i.e., greater than 75
percent), that customers specify exact alloys in placing their orders,
that in all other antidumping proceedings involving brass sheet and
strip the Department has always made exact-alloy matches, and that
Wieland's alloy groupings disregard the Department's conclusion in an
earlier review that it should abandon the grouping methodology and
instead make matches on an exact-alloy basis. The petitioners further
assert that Wieland failed to establish that its home market sales,
when matched to U.S. sales on the basis of exact alloys, ought not to
be taken as representative of home market prices.
Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. We did not
employ the alloy-specific approach merely to conform to approaches used
in reviews of other brass sheet and strip orders, but in order to
follow section 771(16)(B) of the Act, which requires us to compare U.S.
sales to home market merchandise which is identical or, when not
identical, is ``like that (U.S.) merchandise in component material or
materials and in the purposes for which used,'' prior to resorting, if
necessary, to less similar merchandise as described in 771(16)(C)(i)-
(iii).
Wieland does not identify which U.S. sales, if any, are not
``appropriately'' matched to home market merchandise by our method, or
otherwise explain how its less specific standard would be more
appropriate. Nor does Wieland explain how its grouped alloy approach
[[Page 38543]]
would be ``the most practical means of achieving reasonable
comparisons'', other than by arguing that it would make the number of
home market sales used in sales comparisons ``sufficient''.
Regarding Wieland's claim that matching by alloy groups would more
appropriately reflect the nature of Wieland's sales, nothing in the
record supports this claim. On the contrary, according to Wieland, its
customers generally specify exact alloys in their orders. While its
customers may sometimes choose the lowest-cost combination of metals
within a narrow range, no information on the record suggests that
Wieland's customers use the standard of 75 percent copper content in
ordering merchandise.
In arguing that grouping alloys would be appropriate because
grouping is used for gauge and width ranges, Wieland glosses over the
distinction between the gauge and width measures on the one hand, and
alloy grades on the other. Gauge and width are both infinitely variable
and therefore must be divided into tiers to permit any comparisons.
Alloy grades, by contrast, are discretely defined proportions of
metals. Matching by specific alloys provides more precision than merely
differentiating between merchandise which contains above or below 75
percent copper.
The respondent's grouped-alloy approach would assign all home
market merchandise to one of two groupings, would compare each U.S.
sale to home market merchandise containing up to seven different
alloys, and would not necessarily result in comparisons of U.S. sales
to home market merchandise made of only the identical alloy, or of only
the single most similar alloy. The respondent's suggested groupings
could result in understated or overstated dumping margins, due to the
mix of home market models which would form the basis of foreign market
value (FMV). Matching by specific alloys, on the other hand, ensures
that we use the most similar merchandise possible to establish FMV in
our dumping calculations. Therefore, the Department has continued to
use the alloy-specific matching method.
Comment 2: The respondent complains that the Department's change in
model-matching methodology reduces the dumping analysis to ``little
more than a game of chance'' since, according to Wieland, the margin
depends far more on the chance occurrence that a home market customer
will place an order for an alloy identical to one sold in the United
States than on Wieland's general pricing policies for its U.S. and home
market sales. Where a single home market sale serves as the basis for
comparison, Wieland argues, the results of the U.S./home market price
comparison will depend completely on the date on which that home market
sale was made, or, more particularly, on the metal pricing date for the
metal component of the home market sale. Thus, Wieland argues,
differences between U.S. and home market prices are caused by
volatility in the market prices for copper, zinc, and tin, rather than
by Wieland's brass sheet and strip pricing strategies. Wieland suggests
that as an alternative the Department should use alloy groups for
model-matching purposes. Wieland points out that differences in alloy
costs could then be adjusted for with a sale-specific metal adjustment.
Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. Wieland's
``game of chance'' complaint is not supported by the facts of the case
or the methodology we used. This complaint hinges on Wieland's implicit
suggestion that individual home market sales, or pairs of sales,
somehow may not conform to its pricing policies. Wieland offers no
evidence on the record that any home market sale prices should be
excluded as unrepresentative. Wieland has not argued or demonstrated
that some of its home market sales are outside the ordinary course of
trade or are, for some other reason, inappropriate as the basis of FMV.
While Wieland has alleged that there is a danger that price
differences for identical merchandise comparisons might result from
changes in commodity prices of components, it has not demonstrated that
such price fluctuations should affect the model-match methodology.
In the statutory definition of such or similar merchandise (section
771(16) of the Act) there is a clear preference for matching U.S. sales
to home market merchandise which is manufactured by the same producer,
composed of the same materials, and approximately equal in value,
before resorting to comparisons to less similar merchandise. Our
approach reflects this preference; the respondent's approach would
ignore it. We are not permitted to ignore contemporaneous sales of
identical merchandise. Wieland's suggested approach simply does not
conform to the requirements of the antidumping law and regulations.
The risk of price differences caused by changes in the prices of
commodities used as components is not unique to this proceeding but is
inherent in price comparisons in many industries. That risk has not
heretofore served as justification for omitting comparisons of U.S.
sales to contemporaneous home market sales of identical or most similar
merchandise. Yet the respondent's approach would make comparisons to
identical or most similar merchandise impossible, by defining models so
broadly that all comparisons would potentially include similar
merchandise as well as identical merchandise (and would thus be subject
to adjustments for differences in alloy values under 19 CFR 353.57(b)).
But this grouped-alloy approach would not be warranted by the
regulations cited above or by the facts of this review; using exact
alloy comparisons, we were able to match a substantial portion of U.S.
sales to home market merchandise of identical alloys, and all the
remaining U.S. sales with home market merchandise containing one of the
three most similar alloys.
Comment 3: Wieland states that the Court of International Trade
(CIT), addressing the model-matching issue in remanding the final
results in the first administrative review, did not require the
Department to abandon the use of two alloy groups, but merely asked the
Department to articulate the reasons why it did not use the exact-alloy
method. See Hussey Copper Ltd., v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 413 (CIT
1993).
Department's Position: As explained in our response to Comment 2
above, the Department has concluded that the exact-alloy matching
methodology more closely follows the statute, which requires us to make
comparisons of identical merchandise, when this is possible, before
making comparisons with similar merchandise.
Comment 4: The petitioners request that the Department alter the
hierarchy of traits used in matching U.S. sales to home market sales.
In particular, the petitioners ask the Department to place alloy in the
third position, instead of the fifth position. According to the
petitioners, alloy was placed in the third position in certain other
brass sheet and strip cases, and alloy specifications are more
important to customers than gauge and width differences.
Department's Position: The petitioners argue that the model-match
methodology used in this review is a departure from the methodology
used in reviews of brass sheet and strip from other countries. In fact,
although there are many similarities in the methodologies used in the
various brass sheet and strip cases, they are not identical. Because
the facts of each case are distinct from those of other cases,
different hierarchies are applied to the criteria to define home market
sales of the most similar merchandise.
In these reviews, the Department used five criteria to define
models in order to
[[Page 38544]]
compare sales: form, coating, gauge, width, and alloy. For those U.S.
sales for which we did not find sales of identical home market
merchandise, we determined that the most similar home market
merchandise for comparison purposes was merchandise which was identical
in form, coating, gauge, and width, and similar in alloy content.
Therefore, we used specific programming instructions to search for
contemporaneous home market sales of merchandise which was identical
except for alloy. Thus, the only criterion for which we considered
differences was alloy, no matter what the order of the criteria as
listed in the program. Consequently, we do not agree with the
petitioners' suggestion that we change the ordering of the criteria in
a search for similar merchandise.
Concerning the question of whether alloy is more important to
customers than gauge and width specification, as the petitioners
allege, we note that Wieland states in its February 23, 1995 Rebuttal
Brief (p.3) that ``generally customers must have very precise gauges
and widths to serve their particular purpose and to use with their
particular equipment, and no gauge or width substitutes would be
acceptable''. Notwithstanding the petitioners' allegation, there is
nothing in the record of this review to confirm or support the
petitioners' suggestion that customers have less flexibility in alloy
than in gauge and width specifications, which typically have narrow
tolerances reflecting the customers' machining or assembly
requirements. Thus, the petitioners' assertion that alloy is more
important than gauge and width to the respondent's customers is without
foundation in the record of this review.
Therefore, we have determined for these final results to use the
model-matching methodology used for the preliminary results.
Differences in Average Order Size
Comment 5: Defending its claim for adjustments in price to reflect
the different average order sizes of its U.S. sales, Wieland contests
our preliminary finding that it has not demonstrated a relationship
between order size and price. In support of the claimed adjustment,
Wieland cites the price lists in its questionnaire responses, the
Department's verification report in the 1991-1992 administrative
review, section 773(a)(4)(A) of the Act, and the regulations (19 CFR
353.55).
In rebuttal, the petitioners point to the Department's disallowance
in the first review, as upheld by the CIT, concerning the same cost
adjustment claim for different order sizes. The petitioners also note
Wieland's failure to show that it met the regulatory requirement for
such an adjustment, i.e., that Wieland must show that it ``granted
quantity discounts of at least the same magnitude on 20 percent or more
of sales of such or similar merchandise * * *'' (19 CFR 353.55(b)(1)).
Department's Position: We disagree with the respondent. The
regulations do not allow for adjustments to price based merely on
claimed differences in per-pound costs according to order size. The
adjustments allowed are only for differences in price or discounts for
different quantities produced. The regulations (19 CFR 353.55(b)(2))
provide for adjustments if ``the producer demonstrates * * * that the
discounts reflect savings specifically attributable to the production
of the different quantities.'' In its questionnaire response Wieland
complied in part, by showing the savings, in the form of differences in
per-kilogram costs for processing different order quantities. But
Wieland did not place on the record any evidence of quantity discounts
actually given, or information showing that prices were affected by
different production quantities. Indeed, Wieland's questionnaire
response states unequivocally: ``Wieland does not provide price-based
quantity discounts''.
The price list Wieland cites in this regard is not an adequate
basis for this claim since it is a matter of record that the
respondent's prices are negotiated ad hoc and do not necessarily follow
the price list. The 1991-1992 verification report, in which we noted
variations in prices for varying quantities in one particular contract,
is not dispositive; our inspection of a contract in a verification does
not signal our acceptance of a claimed adjustment to price. Wieland has
the burden, in each review, of showing how its actual prices varied
according to quantity, as required by 19 CFR 353.55.
Value-Added Tax
Comment 6: While conceding that the practice is consistent with
current Department policy on value-added tax (VAT), Wieland contests
the Department's application of a 14-percent VAT adjustment to both
U.S. and home market sales in this review, and requests that the
Department instead add the actual home market VAT amount to U.S. price.
Wieland alleges that the use of the VAT rate on sales in both markets
introduces a multiplier effect. Wieland urges the Department to instead
adopt its alternative solution, at least until this issue can be
resolved more definitively by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit (CAFC), once an appeal is heard in the case of Federal Mogul
Corporation v. United States, 834 F. Supp. 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Department's Position: We disagree with Wieland. We adjusted U.S.
Price (USP) and FMV for VAT in accordance with our practice, pursuant
to the decision of the CIT in Federal-Mogul Corporation and the
Torrington Company v. United States, 813 F. Supp. 856 (October 7, 1993)
(Federal-Mogul) and as outlined in Silicomanganese From Venezuela;
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 FR
31204, June 17, 1994, where we address the multiplier effect issue in
detail.
Commission Offset
Comment 7: The petitioners argue that the Department should offset
home market commissions for purchase price (PP) sales.
Department's Position: We agree and have made an offset to FMV for
PP sales based on U.S. indirect selling expenses, limited to the amount
of commissions that were deducted from home market price.
Interest Rates Used in Credit Expenses
Comment 8: In the 1990-1991 review period, neither Wieland nor its
U.S. affiliate borrowed funds in the United States. To calculate the
imputed credit expense on its ESP sales in that period, Wieland used a
U.S. bank deposit interest rate. The petitioners argue that the
Department should correct for Wieland's use of deposit interest rates,
and replace them with home market borrowing rates. The petitioners cite
the Department's position in Final Determination of Sales at less than
Fair Value: Coated Groundwood Paper from Belgium 56 FR 56359 (November
11, 1991) (Groundwood Paper), that a respondent must show that it had
actual borrowings in the United States before the Department imputes
credit expenses based upon U.S. rates.
To calculate the imputed credit expense on its PP sales in the
1990-1991 period, Wieland originally used its home market borrowing
rates. However, in its February 13, 1995 rebuttal brief, Wieland asks
the Department to ``correct this mistake'' and to replace the home
market rates which it used for PP sales with the U.S. deposit rate
which it used for ESP sales, because Department policy now requires
that a U.S. interest rate be used to calculate imputed credit expense
on U.S. sales.
For the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 review periods, Wieland did have
borrowings in the United States, and
[[Page 38545]]
used Wieland-America's average short-term borrowing rate during the
review period as the basis for calculating imputed credit expenses for
both PP and ESP sales. For both of these reviews, the petitioners argue
that Wieland-Werke's home market borrowing rate should be used as the
basis for all U.S. credit expenses. The petitioners argue that Wieland-
Werke extended the credit and incurred the expense to finance the
receivables. The petitioners also note that in the 1992-1993 period of
review, Wieland discontinued invoicing its customers through Wieland-
America and instead billed its unrelated U.S. customers directly.
The respondent argues that the Department correctly measured the
cost of financing sales made in dollars by applying a dollar interest
rate, citing Department policy in the Final Determination of Sales at
Less than Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia, 60 FR 6980, 6998
(1995) (Comment 21) (Roses). Wieland also notes that in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Class 150 Stainless
Steel Threaded Pipe Fittings from Taiwan (59 FR 38432 (July 28, 1994)
(Class 150 Stainless Steel Pipe)), the Department stated that it ``is
required to use the lowest rate at which the respondent has borrowed or
to which the respondent has access.''
Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners and concur
with the respondent that it is reasonable to use dollar-denominated
borrowing rates in these reviews. The respondent is correct in arguing
that the interest rate used for credit expenses should match the
currency in which the sales are denominated, as stated in Roses.
On the question of whether the parent's or the U.S. subsidiary's
dollar-denominated borrowing rate should be applied, where a company
had access, directly or through its U.S. affiliate, to two different
dollar-denominated rates, the lower of the two rates is presumed to
have been used. See, for example, Class 150 Stainless Steel Pipe, where
the Department calculated imputed credit for PP sales using the lower
of two U.S. interest rates available to the respondent. See also Notice
of Final Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
France, 58 FR 37125 (1993) (Comment 30), in which the Department states
that it does not concern itself with determining which of the corporate
entities related to the respondent actually incurs the cost of
financing.
In this case, during the 1990-1991 POR neither the German parent
nor the U.S. subsidiary had borrowings in U.S. dollars, and in the
1991-1992 and 1992-1993 PORs, we are aware of only the U.S. subsidiary
having U.S. borrowings. Therefore, for the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993
administrative reviews, we have used the U.S. subsidiary's interest
rate for borrowings in U.S. dollars.
Concerning Wieland's calculation of U.S. credit expenses in the
1990-1991 review period and Wieland's request that we use deposit rates
rather than borrowing rates, (1) as noted above in Class 150 Stainless
Steel Pipe, we use actual borrowing rates or, if no borrowing occurred,
borrowing rates to which the firm had access, either directly or
through its U.S. affiliate; (2) it is our practice to use lending
rates, as opposed to investment return or deposit rates, in calculating
credit expenses (see Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Stainless Steel Angle From
Japan 60 FR 16608, March 31, 1995 (Comment 7)).
As for the petitioner's reference to the Department's position in
Groundwood Paper, our decision in Groundwood Paper has been superseded
by more recent proceedings (see Final Determinations of Sales at Less
than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium, 58 FR 37122, July 8, 1993). As stated
later in Roses, in cases where there are no borrowings in the currency
of the sales made, as in Wieland's 1990-1991 review period, the
Department may use external information about the cost of borrowing in
a particular currency. Since Wieland did not supply the U.S. borrowing
rates to which it had access during the 1990-1991 review period, we
have used the U.S. prime rate to calculate Wieland's imputed U.S.
credit expenses for this period.
Use of Alloy CDA250
Comment 9: The petitioners state that in the fifth review (1991-
1992) the Department should include home market sales with alloy grade
CDA250 in its dumping analysis, in order to ensure that each U.S. sale
is compared to the home market sales with the closest alloy composition
for product matches in which an identical alloy match is not available.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have
included these sales in our analysis for these final results.
Clerical and Programming Errors
Comment 10: Wieland states, and the petitioners agree, that the
Department's computer program fails to reflect all possible matches
between U.S. and home market sales.
Department's Position: We concur and have amended the programs by
adding programming which ensures that all U.S. sales are correctly
matched to home market sales.
Comment 11: The respondent points out that adjustments for
different alloys were not converted to pounds.
Department's Position: We agree with the respondent and have
converted the adjustments for different alloys to pounds.
Comment 12: The petitioners state that the Department failed to
deduct commissions or direct and indirect selling expenses in its VAT
tax adjustment when it calculated the net U.S. price for ESP sales.
Department's Position: We agree in part with the petitioners. Since
in the preliminary results we did not adjust U.S. commissions and
indirect expenses for VAT, we have done so in these final results.
Clerical Errors Alleged in the Fourth Review Only
Comment 13: The petitioners state that the Department failed to
adjust FMV for the differences in metal costs whenever U.S. sales were
matched to a home market sale of merchandise with a different alloy.
Petitioners state that the Department should increase both the
adjustment for different alloys and the adjustment for other
differences in merchandise to account for the VAT.
Department's Position: In the preliminary results, when matches
were based on merchandise made of different alloys, we did adjust FMV
for differences in alloys. However, we inadvertently failed to increase
the adjustments for differences in merchandise and differences in
alloys by the VAT rate. We have corrected this oversight for these
final results.
Comment 14: The petitioners state that the Department compared VAT-
inclusive U.S. prices to constructed values (CV) which had not been
increased by the VAT rate.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners; we do not add
VAT to CV, but in the preliminary results we inadvertently compared
VAT-inclusive U.S. prices to CV. We have corrected the computer
programming language by removing VAT from the U.S. prices which would
be compared to CV. However, since CV was not used in these final
results, this point is moot.
[[Page 38546]]
Comment 15: The petitioners state that in its test for sales below
cost in the home market, the Department neglected to subtract after-
sale rebates and freight charges. The petitioners further state that in
calculating total cost, the Department neglected to include home market
packing expenses.
Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners. After-sale
rebates, home market packing expenses, and freight are included in
reported costs, and are therefore also included in price for the
purpose of the cost test.
Comment 16: The petitioners state that the Department failed to add
U.S. packing expenses to CV.
Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners; U.S.
packing expenses were included in CV for the preliminary results.
However, since CV was not used in these final results, this point is
moot. Clerical Errors Alleged in the Fifth and Sixth Reviews
Comment 17: The petitioners state the Department double-counted
after-sale rebates by including them in both direct and indirect
selling expenses.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners, and have
amended the final results to remove after-sale rebates from home market
indirect selling expenses.
Comment 18: The petitioners state that in the 1992-1993 review, the
Department failed to include inventory carrying costs in the
calculation of U.S. indirect selling expenses.
Department's Position: We agree and have added inventory carrying
costs to indirect selling expenses for ESP sales.
Comment 19: Petitioner states that the Department should increase
both the adjustment for different alloys and the adjustment for other
differences in merchandise to account for the VAT.
Department's Position: We inadvertently failed to increase the
adjustments for differences in merchandise and differences in alloys by
the VAT rate. We have corrected this oversight for these final results.
Final Results of Reviews
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine
that the following margins exist for Wieland:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter Period margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG.......................... 3/1/90-2/28/91 2.04
3/1/91-2/28/92 2.36
3/1/92-2/28/93 0.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the
above percentages. The Department shall instruct the Customs Service to
liquidate all appropriate entries.
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 zero, since the rate
published in the final results of review for the 1993-1994 period is de
minimis;
(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 less-than-fair-value (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 8.87%, 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 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during the 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 notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APOs) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). 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. 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: July 11, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-18397 Filed 7-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P