[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7238-7240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4418]



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

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: In response to a request from one respondent, 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 the subject merchandise to 
the United States for the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 
1994.
    We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have not been made 
below the normal value (NV). 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 NV. Interested parties are 
invited to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit 
arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument 
(1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen H. Park or John Kugelman, Office 
of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 
482-5253.

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 (BSS) from Canada. On January 12, 1995, the Department published 
in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' of this antidumping duty order for the period 
of January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994 (60 FR 2941). We received 
a timely request for review from the respondent, Wolverine Tube 
(Canada), Inc. (Wolverine). On February 15, 1995, the Department 
initiated a review of Wolverine (60 FR 8629). The period of review 
(POR) is January 1, 1994 though December 31, 1994.

The Applicable Statute

    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.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of BSS, other than 
leaded and tin BSS. 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 
BSS of 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. Coil, 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.
    Pursuant to the final affirmative determination of circumvention of 
antidumping duty order, we determined that brass plate used in the 
production of BSS falls within the scope of the antidumping duty order 
on BSS from Canada. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final 
Affirmative Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 
58 FR 33610 (June 18, 1993).
    The review covers one Canadian manufacturer/exporter, Wolverine, 
and the period January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994.

United States Price (USP)

    In calculating USP for Wolverine, the Department treated 
respondent's sales as export price (EP), as defined in section 772(a) 
of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated 
U.S. purchasers prior to the date of importation.
    We calculated EP based on packed, delivered, duty-paid prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made deductions from 
the gross unit price, where appropriate, for inland freight--plant/
warehouse to port of exit, brokerage and handling, international 
freight, and U.S. customs duty, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) 
of the Act. We added to the gross unit price packing costs for shipment 
to the United States, where applicable, pursuant to section 
772(c)(1)(A) of the Act.
    No other adjustments to USP were claimed or allowed.

Cost of Production Analysis

    Because the Department disregarded sales below the cost of 
production (COP) in the last completed review of Wolverine, we have 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales below the COP may 
have occurred during this review. See Section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Act and Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 49582 (September 26, 1995). Therefore, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP 
investigation of Wolverine.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed 
in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general and 
administrative expenses (SG&A) and the cost of all expenses incidental 
to placing the foreign like product in condition packed ready for 
shipment. We relied on the home market sales and COP information 
provided by Wolverine in its questionnaire responses.
    We compared COP to the reported home market prices on a product-
specific basis, less any applicable movement charges, and rebates. In 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in determining whether to 
disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined 
whether such sales were made within an extended period of time in 
substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at prices 
which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of 

[[Page 7239]]
Wolverine's home market sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent 
or more of Wolverine's home market sales of a given product were at 
prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because 
we determined that the below-cost sales were made within an extended 
period of time in ``substantial quantities'', in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, and because we determined that the 
below-cost home market sales of a given product were at prices which 
would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    The results of our cost test indicated that within an extended 
period of time, for certain home market products, more than 20 percent 
of the home market sales were sold at prices below the COP. In 
addition, no evidence was presented to indicate that below-cost prices 
would permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of 
time. Thus, we excluded these below-cost sales and used the remaining 
above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

Normal Value (NV)

    Based on a comparison of the aggregate quantity of home market and 
U.S. sales, and absent any information that a particular market 
situation in the exporting country does not permit a proper comparison, 
we determined that the quantity of foreign like product sold in the 
exporting country was sufficient to permit a proper comparison with the 
sales of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to 
section 773(a) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the 
foreign like products were first sold for consumption in the exporting 
country.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price of sales 
of the foreign like product. We compared EP sales to sales in the home 
market of identical merchandise.
    We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first 
sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent 
practicable, at the same level of trade as the EP, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act. We made adjustments, where 
applicable, for expenses incident to placing the foreign like product 
in condition packed ready for shipment to the place of delivery to the 
purchaser and home market credit expenses, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We increased home market price by U.S. 
packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act and 
reduced it by home market packing costs in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. Prices were reported net of value-added taxes 
(VAT) and, therefore, no adjustment for VAT was necessary. In 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act, we increased NV by 
adding U.S. credit expense. No other adjustments were claimed or 
allowed.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin 
              Manufacturer/Exporter                  Period    (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine Tube (Canada), Inc....................  1/01/94-12/           
                                                        31/94      0.00 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party 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 workday thereafter. Case briefs and/or written comments from 
interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days after the 
date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs and comments, may be filed 
not later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who 
submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the 
argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument. The Department will issue the final results of the 
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues 
raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 180 days of 
issuance of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences 
between USP and NV may vary from the percentages stated above. The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to Customs. 
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment 
of antidumping dumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the 
determination and for future deposits of estimated duties.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews 
for all shipments of BSS from Canada 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 rate for Wolverine will be 
the rate established in the final results of administrative review; (2) 
for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in 
these reviews but covered in the original LTFV investigation or a 
previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent 
rate published in the final determination or final results for which 
the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if 
the exporter is not a firm covered in these reviews, or the original 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final 
results of these reviews, or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither 
the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in these or any 
previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation (52 FR 1217, 
January 12, 1987).
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (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 sanctionable violation.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility 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 Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)).


[[Page 7240]]

    Dated: February 22, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-4418 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P