[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 132 (Monday, July 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37504-37507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17644]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-059]


Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty 
administrative review of pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty finding on pressure sensitive plastic 
tape (PSPT) from Italy in response to a request from

[[Page 37505]]

a manufacturer of the subject merchandise, Autoadesivi Magri s.r.l. The 
period of review (POR) is October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998. 
This review covers products manufactured and exported by Autoadesivi 
Magri s.r.l. We have preliminarily found that sales of subject 
merchandise have been made below normal value. If these preliminary 
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. 
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference 
between the export price or constructed export price and normal value.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the 
argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 
argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nova J. Daly or Thomas Futtner, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Group II, Office Four, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0989, and 482-3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 (URAA). In addition, unless 
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's 
regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April 
1998).

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by the review are shipments of PSPT measuring 1\3/
8\ inches in width and not exceeding 4 millimeters (mils) in thickness. 
During the POR, the above described PSPT was classified under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings 3919.90.20 and 3919.90.50. 
The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs 
Service (Customs) purposes. The written description remains dispositive 
as to the scope of the product coverage.

Background

    On October 21, 1977, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register (42 FR 56110) the antidumping duty 
finding on PSPT from Italy. On October 9, 1998, the Department 
published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative 
Review'' of this antidumping finding for the period, October 1, 1997 
through September 30, 1998 (63 FR 54440). On October 28, 1998, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Autoadesivi Magri s.r.l. (Magri), a 
manufacturer of the subject merchandise, requested that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of its exports of subject merchandise 
to the United States. We did not receive a request to conduct an 
administrative review from any other party. On November 30, 1998, the 
Department published a ``Notice of Initiation of Administrative 
Review'' (63 FR 65748) covering the POR for the above manufacturer.
    On November 10, 1998, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to 
Magri, setting an original deadline of January 11, 1999, for its 
response. On November 30, 1998, Magri requested an extension of the 
deadline for submitting its response to January 25, 1999. We granted 
this request for an extension on December 11, 1998, and specified that 
if Magri had any questions, it should contact the Department. We did 
not receive a response to the Department's questionnaire from Magri. In 
a February 17, 1999 letter to Magri we again afforded it the 
opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. In the 
letter, we stated that if Magri had so far not responded because it had 
no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, it could so respond 
by March 15, 1999. We also specified that, otherwise, the Department 
would take Magri's non-response to mean that it had decided not to 
cooperate with the review. We clearly stated that, as a consequence, we 
would apply facts available (FA), as stated in our November 10, 1998, 
questionnaire.
    Because we did not receive a questionnaire response or any other 
correspondence from Magri, we have determined that we must resort to FA 
for Magri pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act (see ``Use of Facts 
Otherwise Available'' section, below).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

    Magri did not respond to our original questionnaire or to a follow-
up letter that was issued to it. (See ``Background'' section of this 
notice). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested 
party: (1) Withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department, (2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and 
782(e) of the Act, (3) significantly impedes a determination under the 
antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the 
Act, then the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, 
use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. 
Because Magri did not respond to the questionnaire or the follow-up 
letter, we preliminarily determine that, in accordance with section 
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of FA is appropriate for Magri. In 
addition, there is no information on the record within the meaning of 
section 782(e) of the Act with regard to sales by Magri and, therefore, 
no information to consider as an alternative to FA in determining the 
margin for this company.
    Because Magri completely failed to respond, despite the 
Department's best efforts to accommodate the company, we must conclude 
that Magri failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply 
with the Department's request for information.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds 
that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the 
best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the 
Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of 
that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. The 
section provides that an adverse inference may include reliance on 
information derived from: (1) The petition, (2) the final determination 
in the investigation segment of the proceeding, (3) a previous review 
under section 751 of the Act or a determination under section 753 of 
the Act, or (4) any other information placed on the record. In 
addition, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the 
URAA, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), establishes that the Department 
may employ an adverse inference ``to ensure that the party does not 
obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. In employing adverse inferences, 
the SAA instructs the Department to consider ``the extent to which a 
party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' Id.; see also 
Roller Chain Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of Final Results 
and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
69472, 69477 (November 10, 1997).
    Because Magri did not cooperate by complying with our request for 
information, and in order to ensure that it does not benefit from its 
lack of

[[Page 37506]]

cooperation, we are employing an adverse inference in selecting from 
among the facts otherwise available. The Department's practice when 
selecting an adverse FA rate from among the possible sources of 
information has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse 
so ``as to effectuate the purpose of the FA rule to induce respondents 
to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a 
timely manner.'' See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From 
Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR 
8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).
    In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce Magri's future cooperation, we have assigned the company as 
adverse FA the highest rate from any prior segment of the proceeding, 
12.66 percent. This rate was calculated in Pressure Sensitive Plastic 
Tape From Italy; Final Results of Administrative Duty Review of 
Antidumping Finding, 48 FR 35686 (August 5, 1983) (Final Results 1977-
80), covering the period February 18, 1977 through September 30, 1980.
    Information from prior segments of the proceeding, such as involved 
here, constitutes ``secondary information'' under section 776(c) of the 
Act. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for FA 
by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA 
provides that to ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller 
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components 
Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative 
Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (TRBs), to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
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 from which the Department 
can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as total adverse FA a calculated dumping margin 
from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question 
the reliability of the margin for that time period.
    As to the relevance of the margin used for adverse FA, the 
Department stated in TRBs that it will ``consider information 
reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that 
would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the 
selected margin is not appropriate as adverse FA, the Department will 
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.'' Id.
    As stated above, the highest rate determined in any prior segment 
of the proceeding is 12.66 percent, a calculated rate from Final 
Results 1977-80.
    In the absence of information on the administrative record that 
application of the 12.66 percent rate to Magri would be inappropriate 
as an adverse FA rate in the instant review, we have applied, as FA, 
the 12.66 percent margin from a prior administrative review of this 
finding, and have satisfied the corroboration requirements under 
section 776(c) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the 
following margin exists for the POR:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Weighted-
                  Manufacturer/exporter                   average margin
                                                            percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autoadesivi Magri s.r.l.................................           12.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to 
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with 
these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of 
this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days 
of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments 
in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A 
statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. All 
case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication 
of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in 
the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the case 
briefs are filed. A hearing, if requested, will be held two days after 
the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or the first business day 
thereafter.
    The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this 
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within 
120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.
    The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, 
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this 
review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to 
Customs. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be 
effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative 
review for all shipments of PSPT from Italy 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 rate for the reviewed 
company will be the rate established in the final results of this 
administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or 
exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the original less-
than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or in a previous review, the cash 
deposit rate 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 this review, a previous 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 review or in any previous reviews or in the 
original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 12.66 
percent, the ``new shipper'' rate established in the final results of 
the first antidumping finding administrative review conducted by the 
Department (see Final Results 1977-80, 48 FR at 35688).1 
These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This rate will constitute the ``all others'' rate the for 
this review. In proceedings governed by antidumping findings, unless 
we are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury 
LTFV investigation, the Department has determined that it is 
appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the 
first final results of administrative review published by the 
Department (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical 
errors as a result of litigation) as the ``all others'' rate for the 
purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current and future 
administrative reviews, (see, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Internal-Combustion Industrial 
Forklift Trucks From Japan, 59 FR 1374, 1384, (January 10,1994)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations 
to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties 
prior to

[[Page 37507]]

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 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 2, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-17644 Filed 7-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P