[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49727-49732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]


Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip (BSS) from Germany, and 
its intent to revoke in part (61 FR 20214). The review covers exports 
of this merchandise to the United States by one manufacturer/exporter, 
Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland), during the period March 1, 1994 through 
February 28, 1995.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
adjusted our calculations of Wieland's margin for these final results. 
The review indicates the existence of no dumping margins for this 
period. We have also determined not to revoke the antidumping duty 
order in part.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, 
International

[[Page 49728]]

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-2704 or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the 
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

    On May 6, 1996, the Department (the Department) published in the 
Federal Register the preliminary results of its administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order on BSS from Germany, and its intent to 
revoke in part (61 FR 20214). The antidumping duty order on BSS from 
Germany was published March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6997).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of BSS, other than 
leaded and tinned 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. This review does 
not cover products the chemical compositions of which are defined by 
other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. In physical dimensions, the products 
covered by this review have a solid rectangular cross section over 
0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter) through 0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in 
finished thickness or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-
reels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included. The 
merchandise is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although the HTS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written 
description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.
    The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1994 through February 28, 
1995. The review involves one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We received a case brief 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. We received a rebuttal brief from Wieland. At 
the request of the petitioners, we held a hearing on June 19, 1996.
    Comment 1: The petitioners argue that ``the Department must require 
Wieland to submit complete home market sales data and other relevant 
information in order to be able to conduct a thorough level of trade 
analysis''. Citing 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i), and the 
Department's October 23, 1995, supplemental questionnaire in Certain 
Pasta from Italy and Turkey, petitioners claim that ``the Department 
now affirmatively collects narrative information and sales data from a 
respondent, then analyzes the information to establish whether 
different levels of trade do or do not exist.'' The petitioners argue 
further that ``a respondent is responsible for reporting complete sales 
that include all of its sales of subject merchandise in both the home 
market and the comparison market during the period of review,'' adding 
that our questionnaire required just such information (emphasis in the 
original).
    The petitioners claim that by excluding sales by two affiliates, 
Wieland unilaterally decided not to report all of its home market sales 
of the subject merchandise in both its original and supplemental 
questionnaire responses. The petitioners characterize Wieland's 
election not to report complete home market sales data as a refusal to 
comply with the Department's questionnaires.
    The petitioners take issue also with the Department's actions at 
verification; in particular, our review of sales by Wieland's 
affiliates Roessler GmbH (Roessler) and Schwarzwalder Metallhandel GmbH 
(SMH). The petitioners claim that the Department undertook this 
verification step as an alternative to requiring Wieland to report 
complete home market sales data. The petitioners assert that in 
examining these affiliate sales at verification, the Department was 
improperly gathering new information, rather than merely verifying the 
accuracy of questionnaire responses already submitted. The petitioners 
argue that such a procedure is contrary to statutory intent and bars 
other parties from participating meaningfully in the administrative 
process.
    Wieland argues that the information on the record establishes that 
the Department made the appropriate comparisons at the correct level of 
trade (LOT), and that no further sales information is necessary. 
Wieland points out that it reported home market sales of the most 
similar merchandise at the same LOT, and that no sales by SMH and 
Roessler are of merchandise as physically similar to the U.S. 
merchandise as those which it reported.
    Wieland further argues that, in the absence of a challenge to the 
Department's model-matching methodology, the petitioners'' LOT argument 
is moot, and states that there is no valid reason to collect additional 
sales data from SMH and Roessler because none of their sales would be 
used in a fair value comparison. The respondent also points to record 
evidence from the verification confirming that sales by SMH and 
Roessler were sold at a different LOT from Wieland's U.S. sales.
    Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners. From the 
record evidence we were able to determine that the sales in question 
were of physically less similar merchandise than the reported home 
market sales. As a result, we determined that the information which the 
petitioners would have us collect was not needed for our analysis. We 
further determined that to require a full reporting of these data would 
have occasioned an unwarranted delay in the conduct of the review.
    Furthermore, sheet sales by SMH and Roessler were downstream sales 
which did not represent a significant portion of home market sales. 
Accordingly, we determined that the respondent need not report these 
home market downstream sales. See Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon 
Steel Flat Products from Korea, (60 FR 44008, 44009, August 24, 1995, 
and 61 FR 18547, April 26, 1996), and Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Korea (60 FR 65284, 65286, December 19, 1995).
    We note that contrary to the petitioners' assertion, Wieland did 
not unilaterally limit its response; in its February 14, 1996, letter 
Wieland requested that it be allowed to exclude sales by SMH and 
Roessler, explaining, among other points, that these sales were of 
merchandise less physically similar to the U.S. merchandise than the 
sales which Wieland reported, and that in volume they represented an 
insignificant portion of home market sales.

[[Page 49729]]

    We included in our verification outline specific instructions to 
make available the data on sales of subject merchandise by SMH and 
Roessler. We verified that all such sales were of merchandise which was 
physically less similar to the U.S. merchandise than the reported 
sales, and that their combined volume was a very small percentage (less 
than one percent) of home market sales of sheet. We further verified 
that the home market sales by Roessler and SMH were at a different LOT. 
We did not gather new information, as the petitioners allege, or 
conduct any form of analysis, but conducted a standard verification of 
the response in accordance with law.
    Because we determined that the merchandise sold by SMH and Roessler 
was physically less similar to the U.S. merchandise than the reported 
home market sales, we determined that we would not use this information 
for comparison purposes and that it was not necessary to require 
Wieland to report it.
    We note that our decision to allow the exclusion of sales 
information for SMH and Roessler was not predicated on the reasons 
cited, for example, in Wieland's June 12, 1996, rebuttal brief and in 
its February 5, 1996 letter responding to the petitioners' February 2, 
1996 deficiency comments. We do not agree with Wieland's assertion that 
language in 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(16) (A) and (B) and in the glossary of 
the Department's questionnaire authorized Wieland to selectively report 
only identical or most similar merchandise. Respondents must report all 
sales of identical and similar merchandise, and it is the Department's, 
not the respondent's, responsibility to determine whether certain sales 
need to be reported or not.
    Comment 2: Concerning revocation, 19 CFR Sec. 353.25(a)(2) states 
that the Secretary may revoke an order in part if the Secretary 
concludes that
    (i) One or more producers or resellers covered by the order have 
sold the merchandise at not less then foreign market value for a period 
of at least three consecutive years;
    (ii) It is not likely that those persons will in the future sell 
the merchandise at less than foreign market value; and
    (iii) For producers or resellers that the Secretary previously has 
determined to have sold the merchandise at less than foreign market 
value, the producers or resellers agree in writing to their immediate 
reinstatement in the order, if the Secretary concludes under 
Sec. 353.22(f) that the producer or reseller, subsequent to the 
revocation, sold the merchandise at less than foreign market value.
    The petitioners challenged Wieland's claim to have met the first 
criteria, three years of shipments with no margins, arguing that the 
low volume of Wieland's shipments in the eighth POR ``is tantamount to 
no volume at all,'' and thus does not fulfill the requirement for 
shipments with no dumping margin. The petitioners also note that the 
Department's discussion of revocation criteria in the proposed 
regulations (61 FR 7308, February 27, 1996) contains references to 
``commercially significant quantities.'' The petitioners caution that 
reliance upon small volumes can enable a respondent to ``control a 
handful of transactions in its home market and the United States so as 
to convey the misleading impression of no dumping.'' The petitioners 
urge a comparison of the eighth review volume with the volume in prior 
years.
    Wieland maintains that it has satisfied every statutory and 
regulatory requirement necessary to obtain revocation of the order. 
Citing PQ Corp. v. United States, 652 F. Supp. 724 (CIT 1987) (PQ 
Corp.) and Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
from Italy, (60 FR 10959, 10966-67, February 28, 1995) (AFBs/Italy), 
Wieland argues that even a single sale is sufficient and that no 
minimum quantity is required.
    Wieland argues that the petitioners'' efforts to rely on language 
in the Department's proposed regulations are premature.
    Wieland further argues that its U.S. sales were of quantities 
consistent with the quantities of Wieland's other sales and were, in 
fact, greater in quantity than most of its home market sales. Wieland 
states that nothing in the statute or even the proposed regulations 
supports the petitioners'' suggestion that the eighth POR sales were 
not of a commercially significant volume. Wieland argues as well that 
it would be inappropriate to compare the eighth POR U.S. sales volume 
to total home market and third country sales in earlier periods.
    Department's Position: We agree with Wieland that it made sales in 
the eighth period and we disagree with the petitioners'' equation of a 
decreased sales volume with no volume at all. We examined the U.S. and 
the home market sales and did not find evidence that either were not 
bona fide transactions.
    PQ Corp. did not involve revocation and does not limit the 
Department's discretion in making determinations as to likelihood of 
resumption of sales at LTFV.
    We agree with Wieland that the proposed regulations cited by the 
petitioners are not applicable because they are not final.
    Comment 3: The petitioners argue that administrative and judicial 
precedents make clear that the burden is on the respondent to 
demonstrate that there is no likelihood of a resumption of sales at 
less than fair value (LTFV). The petitioners note that in Television 
Receivers from Japan (55 FR 11420, 11422, March 28, 1990) (TVs/Japan) 
the Department concluded that Toshiba had not presented ``sufficient 
additional information to support its contention that LTFV sales would 
not resume if the finding were to be revoked.'' The petitioners further 
note that in upholding this determination, in Toshiba Corp. v. United 
States, 15 CIT 597, 599 (1991) (Toshiba), the Court of International 
Trade (the Court) confirmed that it was for Toshiba, having requested 
the review, to come forward with ``real evidence'' to persuade Commerce 
to revoke the finding.
    Similarly, the petitioners argue, the Court, in Sanyo Electric Co., 
Ltd. et al. v. United States, 15 CIT 597, 603 (1991) (Sanyo), stated 
that the investigation was conducted at Sanyo's request and it was for 
Sanyo to come forward with real evidence to persuade Commerce to revoke 
the finding. The petitioners also cite Matsushita Electric Industrial 
Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 937 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Matsushita), 
where the appellate court similarly held that it was for respondents to 
come forward with real evidence justifying revocation of a 
countervailing duty order.
    The petitioners note that in Toshiba, Sanyo, and Frozen 
Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil (56 FR 52511, October 21, 1991) 
(FCOJB), the respondents did offer some evidence that they hoped would 
persuade the Department that there was no likelihood of a resumption of 
sales at LTFV and that, by contrast, Wieland has submitted no such 
evidence, notwithstanding that Wieland itself should be in the best 
position to identify and provide any such information. Rather, the 
petitioners note, Wieland has suggested that by making sales for three 
years with no dumping margins and providing the required 
certifications, it has satisfied all the requirements for revocation.
    The petitioners also argue that the dramatic reduction in volume 
and the change in the product mix of Wieland's U.S. sales are evidence 
that Wieland would be likely to resume sales at LTFV if the antidumping 
duty order were revoked for Wieland. In particular, the petitioners 
highlight the elimination of Wieland's U.S. sales of strip in the 
eighth review period and argue that

[[Page 49730]]

strip, which Wieland had previously sold in the U.S. market, is 
typically a more important product in the BSS market (June 19, 1996 
hearing transcript at 33-34).
    Finally, the petitioners argue that the Department must verify any 
evidence or proof relied upon to determine whether a resumption of 
sales at LTFV is likely, and note that this was not done in the 
Department's verification of Wieland's sales data.
    Wieland argues that there is no likelihood of the resumption of 
dumping and that the petitioners have failed to provide any evidence to 
the contrary. Wieland notes that the three-year period of the sixth 
through eighth reviews was marked by changing exchange rates and 
competitive market conditions, and argues that the absence of dumping 
margins in this environment proves that Wieland is able to adapt to 
changing market conditions and economic conditions and to price its 
sales above foreign market value. Wieland cites the Department's 
partial revocation in Color Television Receivers, Except for Video 
Monitors, from Taiwan; Final Results (55 FR 47093, 47097, November 9, 
1990) (TVs/Taiwan) and the upholding of this revocation in Tatung 
Company v. United States, 1994 WL 704952, 704956 (CIT) (Tatung), where 
the Court ruled that ``ordinarily past behavior would constitute 
substantial evidence of expected future behavior.''
    Wieland claims that its ``absence of dumping over the last three 
review periods is in and of itself substantial and dispositive evidence 
that there is no likelihood of the resumption of dumped sales.''
    Wieland notes that the Court in Tatung and the Department in FCOJB 
rejected mere speculation by petitioners that dumping could resume. 
Wieland maintains that in every case of which it is aware under the 
1989 and subsequent regulations, the Department rejected speculation 
about likelihood and relied on the respondent's past pricing behavior. 
Wieland argues that the final results and related court decisions 
involving televisions from Japan, which the petitioners cite, are 
distinguished from the present case by the fact that in those cases the 
absence of shipments by the respondents deprived the Department of 
evidence as to likelihood of resumption of sales at LTFV.
    Wieland argues that the Department has repeatedly analyzed and 
relied on past sales behavior as the best evidence of future behavior. 
Wieland cites TVs/Taiwan, where the Department rejected a petitioner's 
speculation that deteriorating exchange rates alone would make sales at 
LTFV likely, and chose instead to rely on the respondent's ``proven 
track record of no dumping during an appreciating Taiwanese dollar.'' 
Similarly, Wieland argues, in FCOJB the petitioners'' arguments 
concerning market factors, which included fluctuating and falling world 
prices for orange juice and increases in foreign capacity, failed to 
persuade the Department of a likelihood of resumption of dumping, in 
the face of no dumping by the respondent over the three previous years.
    Concerning the decrease in its shipments and their changed 
character, Wieland acknowledges that ``one way of adapting to an order 
is to move into higher value-added products * * *'' and further 
explains that ``Wieland has complied with the order by eliminating 
sales of product which it could not sell at fair value, and pricing all 
other products above fair value'' (rebuttal brief, pp. 24-25). Wieland 
also attributes its decrease in U.S. shipments to its approximately 23 
percent antidumping cash deposit rate.
    Regarding the decrease in shipments of brass sheet and strip from 
Germany in general, which the petitioners cite as evidence of Wieland's 
being likely to resume sales at LTFV if the order were revoked, Wieland 
notes that the category in question encompasses non-subject 
merchandise, and that, in any case, it is normal for an appreciating 
home market currency to cause decreases in exports. Wieland further 
notes that it exported subject merchandise to the United States without 
dumping, despite the appreciation of its home market currency.
    Wieland maintains that the petitioners'' arguments on likelihood 
are attempts to confuse the issue. Wieland argues that these factors 
merely prove that in the face of various changes in market and 
competitive conditions, ``Wieland has maintained the necessary price 
discipline to eliminate sales at less than fair value.''
    Wieland further argues that it has met the final requirement for 
revocation by agreeing to the immediate reinstatement of the 
antidumping duty order if the Department subsequently finds that 
Wieland has resumed dumping.
    Department's Position: In addition to the absence of sales at LTFV 
for three consecutive years, the Department must also be satisfied that 
there is no likelihood of resumption of dumping of the subject product 
before revoking an order in whole or in part (19 CFR 
Sec. 353.25(a)(2)(ii)).
    In this case, as discussed below, Wieland has shipped progressively 
less BSS to the United States since the imposition of the order, until 
in the most recent period it made but one sale, and that of sheet 
rather than the lower-cost strip. But Wieland has built a plant in the 
United States that uses strip as a feed product. We expect that if 
there were no order in place Wieland would naturally prefer to use its 
own strip from Germany to supply its U.S. plant, rather than buy from a 
competitor. In view of this prospect and Wieland's apparent difficulty 
in selling strip at fair value in the United States, we believe it 
difficult to hold that Wieland will be able to ship BSS, particularly 
strip, to the United States at prices at or above fair value. We 
therefore cannot conclude that there is no likelihood of a resumption 
of sales at LTFV.
    We discuss the reasons mentioned in the above summary, as well as 
additional considerations and the parties' arguments, in greater detail 
below.
    In prior cases where revocation was under consideration and the 
likelihood of resumption of dumped sales was at issue, the Department 
has considered, in addition to the respondent's prices and margins in 
the preceding periods, such other factors as conditions and trends in 
the domestic and home market industries, currency movements, and the 
ability of the foreign entity to compete in the U.S. marketplace 
without LTFV sales. See, e.g., FCOJB, Titanium Sponge From Japan, (53 
FR 21099, July 1988) (Titanium) and TVs/Japan. Based on our analysis of 
such market and industry factors, as well as the facts specific to this 
case, we cannot conclude that there is no likelihood of a resumption of 
dumping.
    Competitive conditions for copper and brass mill products are 
characterized by oversupply. According to a trade journal, the market 
for copper and copper-alloy semi-finished products, a category which 
includes brass sheet and strip,

* * * looks to be in decline this year * * * The drop in demand is 
endemic throughout Europe, with France and Germany looking 
particularly depressed at the moment, and producers are generally 
pessimistic about the market in 1996. Increased levels of stocks 
from the end of 1995 are also aggravating this lower demand.'' 
(Metal Bulletin, N. 8054, February 15, 1996, p. 13).

    This decrease in demand in the European market comes only two years 
after a ``glut in the global marketplace'' resulted in a downward trend 
in product prices, in the North American market as well as elsewhere 
(Purchasing, March 3, 1994 v. 116, n. 3, p. 69).

[[Page 49731]]

    At the same time, the U.S. market continues to remain desirable for 
foreign exporters, and Wieland in particular, as explained below, by 
virtue of its large size relative to other markets (Metal Statistics, 
Chilton Publications, New York, N.Y., 1996, p. 169). Germany has 
historically been the largest source of BSS imports into the U.S. 
market and is the largest producer of semi-finished copper and copper-
alloy products, including BSS, in the world (American Metal Market, 
February 16, 1995; also, Metal Statistics, pp. 16, 169).
    German shipments to the United States of those categories of brass 
products which include covered merchandise show dramatic, sustained 
declines following the antidumping duty order. See IM145 Data Bank U.S. 
General Imports and Imports for Consumption, December 1992-1995, 
Foreign Trade Division of the Bureau of the Census, (IM145 Data); see 
also 1985 U.S. Foreign Trade Highlights, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
International Trade Administration, 1986 (1985 Foreign Trade).
    Wieland's own shipments of covered merchandise have declined even 
more sharply. (See August 29, 1996 Analysis Memorandum for Final 
Results (Analysis Memorandum).) In fact, Wieland's shipments during the 
last three administrative review periods have declined each year, 
culminating in Wieland's single U.S. shipment in the eighth POR of less 
than 70,000 pounds of subject merchandise, less than one-thousandth of 
the volume before the order went into effect (See Analysis Memorandum.) 
Furthermore, Wieland's last shipment was of relatively high-valued 
sheet, whereas in previous periods Wieland also sold lower-valued 
strip, which accounts for a much larger share of the market than sheet. 
The sharp decrease in volume and the change in the makeup of Wieland's 
U.S. sales both suggest that Wieland has difficulty selling strip 
covered by the order above fair value.
    Wieland is the largest BSS producer in Germany and also maintains 
substantial commercial and re-rolling operations in the United States. 
Wieland's U.S. plant, which does not cast brass, is a processor of 
subject merchandise, including lower-valued strip, which Wieland has 
sold in the past. Strip is a more important part of the BSS market than 
sheet (hearing transcript at 34) and, as a lower-valued commodity, is 
more likely than sheet to be sold at LTFV (rebuttal brief at 24). 
Wieland recently acknowledged that it faced continuing pressure from 
imports in the home market as a result of the strength of the Deutsche 
mark, and expressed scepticism about future capacity utilization, 
because its level of new orders had been unsatisfactory (Boerson 
Zeitung, March 5, 1996, Handelsblatt, March 7, 1996). With capacity 
utilization in the home market under threat, and a re-rolling facility 
in the United States which both processes and re-sells subject 
merchandise, including lower-valued strip, Wieland would have 
incentives to resume sales in the United States of strip, a product 
which it was unable to sell at fair value in the most recent period, as 
shown by the company's recent U.S. shipments data and as confirmed by 
Wieland's own statements (rebuttal brief, pp. 24-25).
    Concerning Wieland's argument that high antidumping duties 
prevented it from selling strip at fair value, there is no evidence on 
the record of a significant increase in Wieland's U.S. sales of strip 
since the 0% antidumping duty cash deposit rate went into effect in 
July 1995.
    In addition to the above considerations, the continued 
strengthening of the Deutsche mark provides a further impetus for 
Wieland to resume sales at LTFV in the absence of an order. In previous 
cases the Department has recognized exchange-rate relationships as 
significant elements in its determinations about the likelihood of 
resumption of sales at LTFV. See Titanium, Tatung, and TVS/Japan. In 
this case we note that the strengthening of the Deutsche mark vis-a-vis 
the U.S. dollar continues to date; this tends to offset the benefits to 
Wieland resulting from the removal of the previous cash deposit rate 
following the seventh review. Wieland acknowledges that the 
strengthening Deutsche mark did require it to adjust its prices to 
ensure fair value sales (rebuttal brief, p. 24). Public data on brass 
shipments from Germany, as well as case-specific facts, such as 
Wieland's history of declining U.S. imports and the changing 
composition of its U.S. sales, support the view that continued 
strengthening of Wieland's home market currency increases the 
likelihood that its future sales would be made at LTFV, because the 
strengthening home market currency will tend to make home market prices 
higher relative to U.S. prices.
    Wieland thus has several incentives to resume shipments of covered 
merchandise, including lower-valued strip, both to supply its U.S. re-
rolling facility directly and to maximize capacity utilization at home, 
and would be doing so against a backdrop of an ever-strengthening home 
market currency, in a mature industry historically known for its price 
competitiveness. It is therefore reasonable to expect that Wieland 
would supply its U.S. plant with its own strip and that this strip 
would be likely to be sold at LTFV. For these reasons, we cannot 
conclude that there is no likelihood of sales at LTFV.
    We disagree with Wieland that the Department's approaches to the 
revocation issue in TVs/Japan and FCOJB, and the court decisions in 
Toshiba, Matsushita, and Sanyo are irrelevant merely because the 
criteria for revocation changed subsequently or because the cases 
involved no shipments. The principle remains unchanged that the 
Department must be satisfied that there is no likelihood of resumption 
of dumping, and this determination is still not solely dependent on 
three years of no margins. If, as Wieland suggests, three years of no 
margins were sufficient evidence on the likelihood of resumption of 
dumping, then the second regulatory criterion would be superfluous. We 
agree with the petitioners that our practice and the court decisions 
cited above confirm that the second regulatory criterion, that there be 
no likelihood of resumption of dumped sales, is separate and distinct 
from the first criterion.
    Furthermore, the facts in TVs/Taiwan, FCOJB, and AFBs/Italy, where 
we did revoke orders in whole or in part, differ in several respects 
from the facts in this case.
    In TVs/Taiwan the respondent, unlike Wieland, had never been found 
to have sold at LTFV either before or since the order was issued (TVs/
Taiwan, 47097, Comment 16). Also unlike Wieland, which sold a single 
model in a single transaction in the eighth POR, in TVs/Taiwan the 
respondent had sold a multitude of different models in substantial 
quantities in the United States (see Response of Tatung Company to the 
Antidumping Questionnaire Involving Color Television Receivers from 
Taiwan, November 15, 1985, public version, and Memorandum from Analyst 
to File, Tatung Preliminary Analysis, public version, April 7, 1987, p. 
1). Finally, TVs/Taiwan was different from this case because, other 
than the petitioner's one argument on currencies, there was no 
additional evidence indicating the likelihood of a resumption of 
dumping.
    Similarly, there was little evidence bearing on the likelihood 
issue in AFBs/Italy. In that case the petitioners claimed the 
respondent's U.S. sales were ``minuscule''; they were, in fact, greater 
than the quantities relied upon in the Department's initial LTFV 
determination. This fact alone distinguishes AFBs/Italy from the

[[Page 49732]]

present case, where there is a contrary trend. Finally, unlike this 
case, where the petitioners have made several arguments concerning the 
likelihood of resumption of dumping, in AFBs/Italy the petitioner's 
only other argument on likelihood was the fact that SKF-Italy was part 
of a multinational corporation.
    In FCOJB, the Department examined the evolution of product prices, 
current and projected production trends, potential increases in demand 
by third country markets, and present U.S. market conditions, but 
determined that each of these factors either represented evidence 
against the likelihood of a resumption of dumping, or did not correlate 
with a trend of dumping by Brazilian producers. These facts 
differentiate FCOJB from the present case. As discussed above, market 
and currency pressures have made it harder, and are continuing to make 
it harder, for Wieland to sell at or above fair value.
    Wieland is correct that it and the respondent in TVs/Taiwan sold 
merchandise in the United States at fair value despite a strengthening 
home market currency; but, again, other facts in that case, as 
described above, provided more convincing evidence of no likelihood of 
resumption of dumping. Wieland does concede that the strengthening of 
the Deutsche mark, which continues to date, has affected its ability to 
sell at fair value (rebuttal brief, p. 24).
    Thus, the determinations to revoke in TVs/Taiwan and AFBs/Italy 
were reached in light of different factors, and there was less evidence 
of likelihood of resumption of LTFV sales. TVs/Taiwan, Tatung and AFBs/
Italy do not stand for a reliance on three years of no dumping as 
conclusive evidence of no likelihood of a resumption of dumping. 
Accordingly, we disagree with Wieland's suggestion that these cases 
show that the Department should rely solely on Wieland's history of 
three years with no margins as a sufficient indicator of its future 
behavior.
    To recapitulate, the available evidence concerning market and 
economic factors does not support a conclusion that there is no 
likelihood of Wieland's resuming sales at LTFV. Indeed, multiple 
factors argue against such a conclusion: the drop in demand for these 
products in Europe, especially in Germany, which gives Wieland an 
incentive to export these products in order to prevent a diminishing 
capacity utilization rate; Wieland's severe decreases in shipments of 
BSS to the United States since the imposition of the order, and its 
recent complete withdrawal from the strip segment of the market; 
Wieland's ownership in the United States of a re-rolling facility, 
built since the order, which requires subject merchandise as feedstock, 
notably for lower-valued strip; and the difficulties of competing for 
sales of strip in light of a strengthened Deutsche mark, both in the 
home market and the U.S. market, all argue against a conclusion that 
there is no likelihood of a resumption of LTFV sales by Wieland.
    Having considered the industry conditions and the case facts, the 
Department is not satisfied that there is no likelihood of a resumption 
of dumping of covered merchandise by Wieland; therefore, we are not 
granting revocation in part.
    Comment 4: The petitioners argue that the Department failed to take 
into account the revisions made by Wieland with respect to its home 
market packing expenses in its January 11, 1996, submission. The 
respondent did not contest this point.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have 
amended our analysis to reflect the revised expense amount for these 
final results.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine 
that the following margin exists for Wieland:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Percent  
          Manufacturer/exporter                 Period          margin  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG.........................    3/1/94-2/28/95            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individual differences between the US price and normal value may 
vary from the above percentage. The Department shall instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on 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) Because the rate for Wieland is zero, the Department shall not 
require cash deposits on shipments from Wieland;
    (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 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 percent, 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 Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate regarding 
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 
relevant entries during the 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 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 Sec. 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. 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 Sec. 353.22.

    Dated: September 17, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-24352 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P