[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42823-42824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21380]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]


Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On April 7, 1998, 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 (63 
FR 16963). The review covers exports of this merchandise to the United 
States by one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland), during 
the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results of review. We received no comments on the 
preliminary results. On May 11, 1998, Wieland withdrew from 
participation in this review. On May 21, 1998, petitioners submitted a 
letter commenting on Wieland's withdrawal from participation in the 
review. Because of Wieland's withdrawal from participation, we have 
based the margin in this determination on adverse facts available, in 
accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(the Act). As adverse facts available, we have applied the highest 
margin from any prior review of this order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, 
International 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 Act are references 
to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the 
amendments to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, 
unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's 
regulations refer to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR part 353 
(April 1, 1997).

Background

    On April 7, 1997, 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 (63 FR 16963). The 
antidumping duty order on BSS from Germany was published March 6, 1987 
(52 FR 6997). The petitioners are 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 (AFL-CIO/CLC).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of BSS, other than 
leaded and tinned BSS, from Germany. 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 inches (0.15 millimeters) through 
0.188 inches (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 is March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997. 
The review involves one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
withholds information that has been requested by the Department, fails 
to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form 
requested, significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping 
statute, or provides information that cannot be verified, the 
Department shall use facts available in reaching the applicable 
determination.
    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that a party has failed to cooperate by not 
acting to the best of its ability to comply with requests for 
information. See the Statement of Administrative Action at 870 (SAA). 
To determine whether the respondent ``cooperated'' by ``acting to the 
best of its ability'' under section 776(b), the Department considers, 
among other facts, the accuracy and completeness of submitted 
information and whether the respondent has hindered the calculation of 
accurate dumping margins. See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 
and Tubes From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808, 53819-53820 (October 16, 1997).
    In this case, Wieland submitted its questionnaire responses by the 
established deadlines and agreed to verification of its responses. 
Then, on May 11, 1998, Wieland informed the Department that it was 
withdrawing from participation in the review. As a result the 
Department was not able to collect necessary missing information and 
was unable to verify Wieland's responses. Because the Department was 
unable to verify the submitted information, as required by section 
782(i) of the Act, the Department had no authority to rely upon that 
unverified information in making its determination; thus, section 
776(a) of the Act mandates that the Department use facts available in 
making its determination.
    Further, by withdrawing its participation, Wieland effectively 
impeded the instant review. Under section 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the 
Act, the Department has therefore used facts available. As noted above, 
in selecting facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(b) the 
Act, the Department may use an adverse inference if the Department 
finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with requests for information. When a 
respondent does not allow the

[[Page 42824]]

Department to verify submitted information, it is deemed uncooperative, 
which constitutes grounds for applying adverse facts available. See 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Steel 
Wire Rod From Venezuela, 63 FR 8946, 8947 (February 23, 1998); Notice 
of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Vector 
Supercomputers From Japan, 62 FR 45623, 45624 (August 28, 1997); and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Romania, 61 FR 24274, 24275 
(May 14, 1996).
    Consistent with Department practice in cases where a respondent 
fails to cooperate to the best of its ability, and in keeping with 
section 776(b)(3) of the Act, as adverse facts available we have 
applied a margin based on the highest margin found either in prior 
reviews or in the fair value investigation. See for example Viscose 
Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 32820, 32822, June 16, 1998). In this case 
the highest margin from either prior reviews or the fair value 
investigation is 16.18%.
    Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, 
to the extent practicable, secondary information used as facts 
available. Secondary information is described in the SAA (at 870) as 
``[i]nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.''
    The SAA further provides that ``corroborate'' means simply that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value (see SAA at 870). Thus, to corroborate 
secondary information, to the extent practicable, the Department will 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However, 
unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling 
expenses, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping 
margins. The only source for margins is an administrative 
determination. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department 
chooses as total adverse facts available a calculated dumping margin 
from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question 
the reliability of the margin from that time period (i.e., the 
Department can normally be satisfied that the information has probative 
value and that it has complied with the corroboration requirements of 
section 776(c) of the Act). See, e.g., Elemental Sulphur From Canada: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
971 (January 7, 1997) and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 2081, 2088 (January 
15, 1997) .

Final Results of Review

    We have determined that the following margin exists for Wieland:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent 
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Period         margin 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG...........................    3/1/96-2/28/97      16.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department 
shall issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    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 the rate stated 
above;
    (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 
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 7.30 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 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 (APO) 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. This administrative review and this notice are in accordance 
with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 
353.22.

    Dated: July 31, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-21380 Filed 8-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P