[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43342-43344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20557]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]


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

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

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1999.

SUMMARY: On April 6, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the 
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on brass sheet and strip from Germany. This review covers 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States by one 
manufacturer/exporter, Wieland-Werke AG, during the period March 1, 
1997 through February 28, 1998. Due to the respondent's withdrawal from 
participation in this review, we have based its margin on adverse facts 
available, applying the highest margin for any company during any 
segment of this proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or Kris Campbell, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Group II, Office 5, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
4162 or 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

    On April 6, 1999, the Department published the preliminary results 
of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass 
sheet and strip from Germany. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany, 64 FR 
16697 (April 6, 1999) (preliminary results). As stated in the 
preliminary results, Weiland-Werke AG (Weiland) withdrew from 
participation in this review on May 11, 1998, and accordingly received 
a preliminary rate based on adverse facts available (i.e., the highest 
rate for any company during any segment of the proceeding). On May 6, 
1999, we received a case brief from domestic interested 
parties,1 requesting that the Department continue to assign 
Weiland the adverse rate selected in the preliminary results (16.18 
percent). Additionally, since Wieland failed to cooperate by not 
placing any information on the record, the petitioners argued that the 
Department should draw the adverse inference that duty absorption 
occurred on all of Wieland's sales of the subject merchandise during 
the period of review. We received no comments on the preliminary 
results from Wieland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The case brief was filed by petitioners Hussey Copper, Ltd.; 
Outokumpu American Brass; Revere Copper Products, Inc.; 
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; and 
United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC). Also named as 
interested parties were Olin Corporation--Brass Group and United 
Auto Workers (Local 2367).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
    On May 11, 1998, Wieland informed the Department that it was 
withdrawing from participation in the review. By withdrawing its 
participation, Wieland impeded the instant review. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 776(a)(2) of the Act and consistent with our 
preliminary results, we determine that

[[Page 43343]]

the use of total facts available is appropriate for the final results.
    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 from any prior segment of the proceeding. 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 
any prior segment of the proceeding is 16.18 percent ad valorem, 
calculated for a respondent in the less-than-fair-value (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 
results of 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 results of 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 for use 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.

Duty Absorption

    On May 21, 1998, the petitioners requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter 
or producer subject to this administrative review, in the event that 
the subject merchandise was sold during this period of review in the 
United States through an importer affiliated with Weiland.
    Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that, if requested, the 
Department will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed 
by a foreign producer or exporter subject to the order if the subject 
merchandise is sold in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. Section 751(a)(4) of the Act authorizes this inquiry during 
an administrative review initiated two years or four years after 
publication of an order. For transition orders as defined in section 
751(c)(6)(C) of the Act (i.e., antidumping orders in effect as of 
January 1, 1995), section 351.213(j)(2) of the Department's regulations 
provides that the Department will make such a determination for any 
administrative review initiated in 1996 or 1998.
    The order in this case is a transition order, which went into 
effect in 1987. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and 
Strip from the Federal Republic of Germany, 52 FR 6997 (March 6, 1987). 
Because this review was initiated in 1998,2 and the 
petitioners made a timely request for a duty absorption determination 
(i.e., within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of 
initiation of this review), we find that the regulatory requirements 
for a duty absorption determination have been met. See 19 CFR 
351.213(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 63 
FR 20378 (April 24, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their May 6, 1999, case brief, the petitioners argued that since 
Wieland failed to cooperate by not placing any information on the 
record, the Department should draw the adverse inference that duty 
absorption occurred on all of Wieland's sales of the subject 
merchandise during the period of review. As explained above, we have 
determined that a margin exists for Wieland based on adverse facts 
available. Lacking other information, we find that duty absorption 
exists on all of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise made by 
Wieland. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Sweden, 
and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 35590, 35601 (July 1, 1999); Extruded 
Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 63 FR 12752, 12756 (March 16, 1998).

Final Results of Review

    We have determined that the following margin exists for Wieland for 
the period March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
                   Manufacturer/exporter                        margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG...........................................        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

[[Page 43344]]

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 351.402(f) 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 351.304. 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 determination is issued and published in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 4, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20557 Filed 8-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P