[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43372-43373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21789]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-803]


Industrial Nitrocellulose 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 of industrial nitrocellulose from Germany.

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

SUMMARY: On April 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce published its 
preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on industrial nitrocellulose from Germany for the period July 1, 
1996, through June 30, 1997 (63 FR 17364). The Department of Commerce 
has now completed its administrative review in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930. For information on the assessment of 
antidumping duties for the reviewed company, and for all non-reviewed 
companies, see the Final Results of Review section of this notice. This 
review covers imports of industrial nitrocellulose from one producer, 
Wolff Walsrode AG.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our 
preliminary results. We have based our analysis on the comments 
received and have changed the results from those presented in the 
preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Zev Primor, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4195, and 482-4114, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on industrial 
nitrocellulose from Germany for the period July 1, 1996, through June 
30, 1997 (63 FR 17364). The Department has now completed this 
administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The 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 made 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 of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations refer to the regulations as stated in 62 FR 
27296, May 19, 1997.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of industrial 
nitrocellulose (INC) from Germany. INC is a dry, white, amorphous 
synthetic chemical with a nitrogen content between 10.8 and 12.2 
percent, and is produced from the reaction of cellulose with nitric 
acid. INC is used as a film-former in coatings, lacquers, furniture 
finishes, and printing inks. The scope of this order does not include 
explosive grade nitrocellulose, which has a nitrogen content of greater 
than 12.2 percent. INC is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS) subheading 3912.20.00. White the HTS item number is 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description 
remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. The review 
period is July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received comments from the respondent, Wolff 
Walsrode (Wolff) and the petitioner, Hercules Incorporated.
    Comment 1: Respondent argues that the Department used Wolff's 
budgeted operating result from its financial statement rather than its 
actual operating result in calculating Wolff's constructed export price 
(CEP) profit ratio. Petitioner did not comment.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent that 
Wolff's actual operating result should be used in calculating Wolff's 
constructed export price profit ratio because the actual operating 
result is the more accurate than the budgeted operating results. The 
Department has corrected this error.
    Comment 2: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently 
included all contemporaneous home market sales in the computer 
program's calculation of weighted-averaged normal values rather than 
selecting the sales during the most contemporaneous month as required 
by section 351.414(e)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations. Petitioner 
argues that this error only affects five U.S. sales and would be 
corrected in all but one instance when the Department corrects the 
product coding, as requested by the respondent. See comment six.
    Department's Position: The Department has utilized respondent's 
computer programming language as outlined in their case brief for the 
final results. The Department notes that the computer program does 
calculate the weighted-average normal values during the most 
contemporaneous month as required by section 351.414(e)(2)(i). However, 
while the revised programming altered variable names, it did not change 
the results of the program.
    Comment 3: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently 
failed to add U.S. freight revenue in calculating the net CEP price. 
Petitioner did not comment.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with the respondent 
and has corrected this error.
    Comment 4: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently 
failed to deduct the CEP offset from the normal value of home market 
sales matched to U.S. CEP sales with no commissions. Respondent also 
argues that the Department failed to deduct the commission offset from 
normal value of home market sales matched to U.S. sales with 
commissions. Petitioner did not comment.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent and 
has corrected these programming errors.
    Comment 5: Respondent argues that the Department should calculate 
one assessment rate for transmittal to the U.S. Customs Service because 
Customs cannot readily determine whether a particular importation is an 
EP or CEP sale. Petitioner agrees with respondent, but wants to ensure 
that the entire amount of antidumping duty calculated by the Department 
is collected by Customs.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent that 
in this instance there should be one rate per importer and has 
corrected this error.
    Comment 6: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly used 
the SAS function, COMPRESS, in the

[[Page 43373]]

creation of the model matching hierarchy. As a result, the variables 
were improperly sorted. In addition, petitioner claims that the 
Department incorrectly defined three product characteristic codes in 
the model match program. Respondent agrees that there is a programming 
error in the model matching hierarchy, but disagrees with petitioner's 
suggested solution. Respondent argues that the problem with the model 
match program identified by the petitioner is not solely caused by the 
COMPRESS code, but also by the Department's methodology in hand-coding 
viscosity levels in the program. Respondent argues that in addition to 
petitioner's recommendation, the Department must also alter the U.S. 
viscosity hand-coding section of the program to result in a more 
accurate model matching.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with both petitioner 
and respondent that there is a programming error with three models in 
the matching hierarchy. The Department has corrected the programming 
errors in the model matching hierarchy and the error in the hand coding 
section. However, the Department disagrees with petitioner and that the 
SAS function, COMPRESS, caused an improper sorting of models. The 
compress function is used to minimize space and has no impact on the 
model matching hierarchy.
    Comment 7: Petitioner contends that only sales to the United States 
within the 12-month review period should be included in the model match 
program, and that the month code should be corrected. Respondent did 
not comment.
    Department's Position: The Department agrees with petitioner and 
has corrected these programming errors.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of the comments received we have revised our analysis 
and determine that the following margins exist for the period July 1, 
1996, through June 30, 1997:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin  
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolff Walsrode AG (WWAG)...................................         7.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between normal value and export price may vary from the 
percentages stated above. We have calculated a company-specific duty 
assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
the same sales. The rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of 
that particular company made during the POR. The Department will issue 
appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
for all shipments of industrial nitrocellulose from Germany, entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the 
publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as 
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates 
for the reviewed company will be the rate for the firm as stated above; 
(2) if the exporter is not covered in this review, or the original 
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; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 
review, previous reviews, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacture is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) 
for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash 
deposit rate will be 3.84 percent, the ``all others'' rate from the 
LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 6, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-21789 Filed 8-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M