[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16697-16699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8485]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]


Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and the 
respondent, Wieland-Werke AG, the Department of Commerce is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet 
and strip from Germany. This review covers one manufacturer and 
exporter of the subject merchandise, Wieland-Werke AG. The period of 
review is March 1, 1997, through February 28, 1998.
    For the reasons provided in the Facts Available section of this 
notice, we have preliminarily determined Wieland-Werke AG's antidumping 
rate based on adverse facts available, assigning to this company the 
highest margin applied to a respondent during any segment of this 
proceeding. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final 
results of administrative review, we will instruct the Customs Service 
to assess antidumping duties based on that margin.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Kris Campbell, AD/CVD 
Enforcement Group I, Office 2, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4162 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    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 (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to the regulations provided in 19 CFR 
Part 351 (1998).

Background

    The Department published the antidumping duty order on brass sheet 
and strip from Germany on March 6, 1987. See Notice of Antidumping Duty 
Order; Brass Sheet and Strip From the Federal Republic of Germany, 52 
FR 6997 (March 6, 1987). On March 11, 1998, the Department published a 
notice of opportunity to request an

[[Page 16698]]

administrative review of the antidumping duty order for the 1997/98 
review period. See Notice of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 11868 (March 11, 1998). On March 31, 1998, 
the petitioners 1 and Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland) requested 
that the Department conduct an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on brass sheet and strip from Germany for Wieland. We 
published a notice of initiation of this review on April 24, 1998. See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 63 FR 20378 
(April 24, 1998). On May 5, 1998, we issued an antidumping 
questionnaire to Wieland. Wieland withdrew from participation in this 
review on May 11, 1998. On December 7,1998, we extended the time limit 
for issuance of the preliminary results by 120 days because it was not 
practicable to issue these results within the specified time period. 
See Postponement of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 67453 (December 7, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 Steel Workers of 
America (AFL-CIO/CLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Review

    This review covers shipments of brass sheet and strip, other than 
leaded and tinned, 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 of the United States 
(HTSUS) item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although the HTSUS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
Department's written description of the scope of this order remains 
dispositive.

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 to the URAA at 
870 (SAA).
    In this case, Wieland informed the Department that it was 
withdrawing from participation in the review on May 11, 1998. By 
withdrawing its participation, Wieland impeded the instant review. 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the use of total facts 
available is appropriate, in accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the 
Act.
    As noted above, in selecting facts otherwise available, pursuant to 
section 776(b) of the Act, the Department may use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party, such as Wieland in 
this case, failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability 
to comply with requests for information. 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 LTFV investigation. See, 
e.g., Viscose Rayon Staple Fiber From Finland, 63 FR 32820, 32822 (June 
16, 1998) (final administrative review). In this case, the highest 
margin from either prior reviews or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation is 16.18 percent ad valorem. This rate was calculated for 
a respondent in the LTFV investigation.
    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. 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, 62 FR 971 (January 7, 1997) (preliminary 
administrative review) and Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered 
Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof from France, et al., 62 FR 2081, 
2088 (January 15, 1997) (final administrative review). With respect to 
the relevance aspect of corroboration, however, the Department will 
consider information reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are 
circumstances that would render a margin inappropriate. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
adverse facts available, the Department will disregard the margin and 
determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers from 
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 
6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department disregarded the 
highest margin as adverse facts available because the margin was based 
on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
unusually high margin). In this review, we are not aware of any 
circumstances that would render the use of the margin selected for 
Wieland as inappropriate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the period March 1, 1997, through February 
28, 1998:

[[Page 16699]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Percentage
             Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter                   Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland.................................................           16.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within thirty days of 
publication. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be 
held 44 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday 
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to 
issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days 
after the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of 
the final results of this administrative review, which will include the 
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments, 
not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rate

    In the event these preliminary results are made final, we intend to 
assess antidumping duties on Wieland's entries at the same rate as the 
dumping margin (i.e., 16.18 percent) since the margin is not a current 
calculated rate for the respondent, but a rate based upon total facts 
available pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.

Cash Deposit

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as 
provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate 
for Wieland will be the rate established in the final results of this 
administrative review (no deposit will be required for a zero or de 
minimis margin, i.e., a margin lower than 0.5 percent); (2) for 
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in these 
reviews but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash 
deposit rate will be the company-specific rate published for the most 
recent segment; (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 these 
or any prior review, the cash deposit rate will be 7.30 percent, the 
all others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit 
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of 
the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: March 31, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-8485 Filed 4-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P