Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices 51449

accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the

Act. In addition, where appropriate, we

made adjustments to NV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

Where CV was compared to EP, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

home market direct selling expenses

and added the weighted-average U.S.

product-specific direct selling expenses

in accordance with section 773

(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act.

Where CV was compared to CEP, we

deducted from CV the weighted-average

home market direct selling expenses. In

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of

the Act, we granted a CEP offset

adjustment and reduced normal value

by the amount of indirect selling

expenses, including inventory carrying

costs and other indirect selling

expenses, up to the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales

deducted from the CEP.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars based on the official

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Section 773A(a) directs the

Department to use a daily exchange rate

in order to convert foreign currencies

into U.S. dollars unless the daily rate

involves a fluctuation. It is the

Department’s practice to find that a

fluctuation exists when the daily

exchange rate differs from the

benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The

benchmark is defined as the moving

average of rates for the past 40 business

days. When we determine a fluctuation

to have existed, we substitute the

benchmark rate for the daily rate, in

accordance with established practice.

Further, section 773A(b) directs the

Department to allow a 60-day

adjustment period when a currency has

undergone a sustained movement. A

sustained movement has occurred when

the weekly average of actual daily rates

exceeds the weekly average of

benchmark rates by more than five

percent for eight consecutive weeks.

(For an explanation of this method, see

Policy Bulletin 96–1: Currency

Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8,

1996).) Such an adjustment period is

required only when a foreign currency

is appreciating against the U.S. dollar.

The use of an adjustment period was not

warranted in this case because the New

Taiwan dollar did not undergo a

sustained movement.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify all information

determined to be acceptable for use in

making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

imports of subject merchandise that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We will instruct the Customs

Service to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the U.S. price, as indicated in

the chart below. These suspension of

liquidation instructions will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weighted-average margin percentage

Advanced Microelectronics ........... 113.85

Alliance ......................................... 59.06

BIT ................................................ 113.85

ISSI ............................................... 10.96

Texas Instruments ........................ 113.85

UMC .............................................. 63.36

Winbond ........................................ 94.10

All Others ...................................... 41.30

Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the

Act, the Department has excluded the

margins determined entirely under

section 776 of the Act from the

calculation of the ‘‘All Others Rate.’’

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

Public Comment

Case briefs or other written comments

in at least ten copies must be submitted

to the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than December

18, 1997, and rebuttal briefs no later

than December 22, 1997. A list of

authorities used and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Such summary should be limited to five

pages total, including footnotes. In

accordance with section 774 of the Act,

we will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs.

Tentatively, the hearing will be held on

December 23, 1997, time and room to be

determined, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, within ten

days of the publication of this notice.

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s

name, address, and telephone number;

(2) the number of participants; and (3)

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination by no later than 135

days after the publication of this notice

in the Federal Register.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act.

Dated: September 23, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–25943 Filed 9–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–421–701]

Brass Sheet and Strip From the

Netherlands: 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 May 12, 1997, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on brass

sheet and strip from the Netherlands.

This review covers sales to the United

States by one manufacturer/exporter,

Outokumpu Copper Strip B.V. (OBV),

and its U.S. affiliate, Outokumpu

Copper (USA), Inc., of the subject

merchandise during the period of
51450 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices

review (POR), August 1, 1995, through

July 31, 1996. We gave interested parties

an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review, where indicated below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karla Whalen or Lisette Lach, Office of

Antidumping/Countervailing Duty

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) 482–0408 or (202) 482–

6412, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the regulations, as codified at 19 CFR

Part 353 (1997).

Scope of This Review

Imports covered by this review

include brass sheet and strip, other than

leaded and tin brass sheet and strip,

from the Netherlands. The chemical

composition of the products under

review is currently defined in the

Copper Development Association

(C.D.A.) 200 Series or the Unified

Numbering System (U.N.S.) C20000

series. This review does not cover

products the chemical composition of

which are defined by other C.D.A. or

U.N.S. series. The physical dimensions

of the products covered by this review

are brass sheet and strip of solid

rectangular cross section over 0.006

inch (0.15 millimeter) through 0.188

inch (4.8 millimeters) in gauge,

regardless of width. Coiled, wound-onreels (traverse-wound), and cut-tolength products are included. The

merchandise under review is currently

classifiable under items numbers

7409.21.00 and 7409.29.20 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under review is dispositive.

Background

On August 12, 1988, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on brass sheet

and strip (BSS) from the Netherlands

(53 FR 30455). On August 12, 1996, the

Department published the notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative

Review’’ for the period August 1, 1995

through July 31, 1996 on BSS from the

Netherlands (61 FR 41768). In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1),

OBV requested that we conduct a

review of its sales. On September 17,

1996, we published in the Federal

Register a notice of initiation of this

antidumping administrative review (61

FR 48882). This review covers entries of

BSS by OBV and its U.S. affiliate

Outokumpu Copper (USA), Inc.

(OCUSA). On May 12, 1997, the

Department published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of the

administrative review (62 FR 25891). On

May 27, 1997, respondent submitted a

ministerial error allegation.

On June 11, 1997, petitioners

submitted a case brief and on June 18,

1997, respondent submitted a reply

brief. Neither petitioners (Hussey

Copper, Ltd., The Miller Company, Olin

Corporation, Revere Copper Products,

Inc., International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the

International Union, Allied Industrial

Workers of America (AFL–CIO/CLC))

nor respondent requested a hearing;

therefore, no hearing was held. The

Department has now completed this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: Reporting of Metal Prices

on ‘‘Rework’’ Sales

Petitioners allege that for certain

home market sales, OBV failed to report

a metal price. Petitioners base this claim

on OBV’s statement in its section B

response that ‘‘[r]ework sales may also

involve reworking scrap purchased by

OBV which is fabricated into a finished

product.’’ Therefore, petitioners

conclude that as the Department has

been working with an ‘‘incomplete’’

database for the home market sales, the

Department should reject the home

market database as submitted and resort

to use of facts available, or at a

minimum, impute the maximum metal

cost to these sales.

Respondent replies that petitioners’

allegation evidences a

misunderstanding of ‘‘rework’’ sales as

reported by OBV. OBV claims that it

accurately reported prices for all sales,

including the metal component, where

applicable. First, OBV reasserts that

when it purchased metal, fabricated the

metal, and invoiced the customer for

both metal and fabrication, the gross

unit price reported to the Department

included both metal and fabrication

prices. Further, respondent asserts that

if a transaction reported in the home

market sales list does not provide a

metal price, that transaction was a toll

sale, whereby the customer supplied the

metal, OBV processed the metal and

subsequently invoiced the customer

solely for fabrication. Therefore, OBV

did not report a metal price for these toll

sales.

Second, OBV believes that petitioners’

allegation results partly from confusion

regarding the nature of the types of sales

coded in Field 8.5, REWRKH, of OBV’s

home market sales list. When OBV

purchased scrap from a customer and

provided fabrication services to the

customer, OBV considered these nontoll sales, which it reported to the

Department with both a metal and

fabrication price. Respondent points out

that all sales coded in Field 8.5, with an

‘‘R’’ or a ‘‘B,’’ are toll sales in which the

customer provided the metal to OBV for

fabrication and OBV invoiced the

customer only for fabrication charges.

Sales designated in the sales listing by

an ‘‘R’’ indicate transactions where the

customer provides scrap metal for

processing into subject merchandise.

Sales designated by a ‘‘B’’ indicate

transactions where the customer

provides virgin metal for processing into

subject merchandise. The metal fixation

codes for each of these types of

transactions evidence a tolling process.

Thus, respondent reported a zero metal

price for both ‘‘R’’ and ‘‘B’’ transactions,

since there is no applicable metal price

for these types of transactions.

Third, respondent argues that at

verification the Department verified

both types of transactions and verified

that OBV reported a metal price for all

sales where the customer was actually

charged for the metal as well as for the

fabrication. The Department found no

discrepancies in the sales traces.

Finally, respondent notes that a

comparison of the average prices

charged for rework and regular sales

demonstrates a credible difference in

pricing.

For the reasons identified above,

respondent argues that there is no basis

for the Department to apply facts

available or to make changes to the

reported sales information as the record

clearly demonstrates that the sales price

data reported by OBV was complete,

accurate and fully verified by the

Department.

Department’s Position: We agree with

respondent that it fully reported its sales
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices 51451

in accordance with the Department’s

instructions. Whenever there was a

metal price associated with any given

sale, it was reported by OBV. The

Department verified several scenarios,

including sales of the foreign like

product in the ordinary course of trade

where customers purchased the fully

processed, finished product from OBV.

The Department also verified that OBV

made what are commonly referred to as

‘‘rework’’ or ‘‘tolled sales.’’ (See OBV

Sales Verification Report, dated April

16, 1997, at 32–37). OBV reported these

as either an ‘‘R’’ or a ‘‘B’’ in Field 8.5,

REWRKH, of its home market data base.

In this situation, OBV acts purely as a

subcontractor. OBV receives raw or

semi-finished material (whether scrap or

plate) from the unaffiliated customer,

which OBV then fabricates into the

finished merchandise before sending it

back to the customer. OBV performs this

service for a fabrication fee and never

takes title either to the input product or

the finished merchandise.

Comment 2: Constructed Value Profit

Petitioners claim that the Department

erroneously disregarded ‘‘rework’’ sales

from its calculation of constructed value

(CV) profit. Petitioners maintain that the

Department must include all sales of the

foreign like product in the CV profit

calculation, whether or not such sales

are used as the basis of product

comparisons. Petitioners argue that the

‘‘rework’’ sales are made in the ordinary

course of trade and as such must be

included in the calculation of CV profit.

Petitioners also argue that the nature of

the metal or scrap input does not matter

in determining whether these sales are

outside of the ordinary course of trade,

since the final product produced by

OBV is identified by identical product

control numbers. They argue that it is

unjustifiable to exclude such sales for

any reason other than a finding that the

sales are outside of the ordinary course

of trade. Accordingly, petitioners claim

that ‘‘rework’’ sales should be included

in the calculation of CV profit.

OBV states that the Department

properly excluded the rework sales from

the calculation of constructed value

profit because they are toll sales which

should properly be classified as outside

of the ordinary course of trade. Rework

sales are sales of fabrication services,

not sales of the foreign like product.

OBV equates its rework sales to toll

sales because the customer provides the

material to be fabricated by OBV. OBV,

in turn, fabricates the material into a

finished product that is shipped back to

the customer, and the customer is only

invoiced for the fabrication service

provided by OBV. Respondent reiterates

that fabrication does not encompass the

sale of a product, and consequently, any

profit earned by OBV on toll sales

should be excluded from the

constructed value calculation for normal

sales of brass sheet and strip. OBV

further argues that it has been the

Department’s policy to exclude toll sales

from the calculation of normal value,

where the U.S. transactions did not

involve toll sales. See Brass Sheet and

Strip from the Republic of Korea, 51 FR

40833, 40834 (November 10, 1986).

Thus, respondent urges the Department

to continue to follow Department

practice and exclude rework/toll sales

from the normal value calculation and

from the calculation of constructed

value profit.

OBV adds, however, that should the

Department deviate from its own

precedents with regard to the issue of

rework/toll sales, as well as its

established policy in all reviews of

Brass Sheet and Strip from the

Netherlands, the Department should

apply a sales-below-cost test using the

data reported by OBV and verified by

the Department. Respondent argues that

petitioners’ recommendation that the

Department alter the verified prices

reported in OBV’s sales list for the

rework sales prior to the cost test is

legally and factually unsubstantiated.

Alternatively, respondent suggests that

the Department rely on the reported

gross price and the reported cost of

production (COP).

Department’s Position: Previously, the

Department treated tolling operations as

involving the sale by the subcontractor

of the subject merchandise. Under this

view, in tolling situations, ‘‘only the

fabrication would be subject to the order

on brass sheet and strip.’’ Brass Sheet

and Strip From Canada; Final

Affirmative Determination of

Circumvention of Antidumping Duty

Order, 58 FR 33610, 33612 (June 18,

1993). Accordingly, when possible, the

Department compared tolled sales to

tolled sales and non-tolled sales to nontolled sales. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Brass Sheet and Strip From

Italy, 52 FR 816 (Jan. 9, 1987); Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value; Brass Sheet and Strip from

Canada, 51 FR 44319 (Dec. 9, 1986).

Recently, however, the Department

revised its practice and now considers

the party contracting for the tolling,

rather than the processor or

subcontractor, to be the producer/

exporter of the merchandise. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol From

Taiwan, 61 FR 14064, 14070 (March 29,

1996). The Department’s new approach

to tolling is reflected in the recently

adopted regulations implementing the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). See Antidumping Duties;

Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR

27296, 27411 (May 19, 1997)

(§ 351.401(h)). These regulations do not

govern the present review because the

review was initiated prior to the date

the regulations became effective.

However, to the extent the regulations

reflect the Department’s practice, they

do provide guidance.

In the case of tolling, the Department

revised its practice prior to the date the

new regulations were proposed.

Although this change was not directly

necessitated by the URAA, the

Department considers its new approach

to tolling a more reasonable

interpretation of the statute’s intent.

This is because, as described in the

preamble to the proposed regulations,

the party owning the components of the

subject merchandise, the general

contractor who arranges for the outside

processing or assembly, ‘‘has ultimate

control over how the merchandise is

produced and the manner in which it is

ultimately sold. The Department will

not consider the subcontractor to be the

manufacturer or producer, regardless of

the proportion of production

attributable to the subcontracted

operation or the location of the

subcontractor or owner of the goods.’’

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Proposed Rule, 61 FR 7308, 7330

(Feb. 27, 1996) (preamble).

Thus, the Department does not view

OBV’s sales of its tolling services as

sales of the foreign like product within

the ordinary course of trade. See 19

U.S.C. § 1677b(a)(1) (1995). Therefore,

we have not included OBV’s reported

sales of its tolling services within the

home market data base for comparison

purposes or otherwise. Similarly, any

profit derived from these sales should

not be included in the calculation of

constructed value.

Comment 3: Packing Conversion Error

Petitioners note that in calculating

OBV’s packing costs for sales in the

United States, the Department divided

by the conversion factor when it should

have multiplied by the conversion factor

in converting pounds to kilograms.

Therefore, the Department should

correct this error in its final margin

calculation program. OBV did not

comment.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with petitioners and

has corrected this error in the final

program.
51452 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices

Comment 4: U.S. Imputed Credit

Expenses

Petitioners allege that OBV incorrectly

used a home market interest rate,

instead of a U.S. interest rate, to

determine imputed credit expenses for

U.S. sales. Petitioners argue that this is

inconsistent with the Department’s

practice, for the Department usually

calculates imputed credit expenses by

using a weighted-average, short-term

borrowing rate that reflects the currency

in which the sale was invoiced.

Therefore, given that OBV’s U.S. sales

were invoiced in U.S. dollars, the U.S.

short-term interest rate should be used

to determine imputed credit expenses

for OBV’s U.S. sales.

Petitioners state that the Department

should recalculate OBV’s U.S. imputed

credit expenses using the publicly

available U.S. short-term borrowing rate

prevailing during the POR, since OBV’s

actual short-term borrowing rate in the

United States is not available.

Petitioners suggest that the Department

use 8.52 percent, which is the average

U.S. prime rate for third-quarter 1995

through second-quarter 1996, as

published by the International Monetary

Fund (See International Financial

Statistics at 645 (April 1997)). OBV did

not comment.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with petitioners.

Ordinarily, the Department calculates

imputed credit expenses using a

weighted-average, short-term borrowing

rate which reflects the currency in

which the sale was invoiced. See, e.g.,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from

Turkey, 61 FR 30309, 30324 (June 14,

1996); Final Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Canned

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 60 FR

29553, 29557 (June 5, 1995); and Final

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair

Value: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld

Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 60 FR

10552 (February 27, 1995). The

Department has continued to apply

OBV’s actual Dutch guilders

denominated short-term borrowing rates

as reported for all home market sales.

OBV had no reported short-term

borrowing rates for its sales to the

United States, all of which were

denominated in U.S. dollars. Therefore,

consistent with our current practice, the

Department has applied 8.47 percent,

the average U.S. prime rate for August

1995 through July 1996, as published by

the Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System. See Federal Reserve

Bulletin at A22 (July 1997).

Comment 5: Cost of Manufacturing

Petitioners note that the Department’s

cost of production verification report

states that OBV discovered errors in its

submitted COM while preparing for

verification. Petitioners maintain that

for the final determination the

Department should correct the errors

reported by OBV. OBV did not comment

on this issue.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with petitioners and

has made the required adjustment to

COM in the final margin calculation

program.

Comment 6: Direct Cost Center

Allocation

Petitioners note that in OBV’s normal

accounting records, it allocates costs for

its direct cost centers on the basis of

kilograms processed. However, for this

review, OBV allocated costs for two of

its costs centers on the basis of linear

meters processed. Petitioners argue that

section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act requires

and the Department’s practice is to rely

on the respondent’s books and records

if they reasonably reflect the costs

associated with the cost of producing

the subject merchandise. See Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Canned Pineapple Fruit

From Thailand, 60 FR 29533, 29559

(June 5, 1995). Petitioners state that the

Department obtained information

during verification indicating that the

allocation methodology used by OBV in

its questionnaire response is not

consistent with the allocation methods

used by OBV in the normal course of

business. Therefore, petitioners

conclude that the Department should

adjust OBV’s reported conversion costs

to reflect the cost allocation methods

used by OBV in the normal course of

business.

Respondent states that the

Department must reject petitioners’

request to adjust OBV’s control number

specific costs submitted to the

Department. According to OBV, the

allocation it uses in the normal course

of business assigns costs to broad

product groups and fails to capture the

cost of the product characteristics

defined by the Department. Respondent

notes that the Department’s Section D

questionnaire requires that the

submitted costs recognize the

differences in physical characteristics of

the subject merchandise. Respondent

maintains that it developed the linear

meters processed allocation

methodology in order to accurately

report product-specific costs to the

Department. Respondent contends that

allocating costs based on OBV’s normal

methodology (i.e., on a per kilogram

processed basis), as requested by

petitioners, results in control numbers

being assigned the same average costs.

OBV notes that products with different

dimensions require vastly differing

amounts of processing time, with thin

products undergoing more processing

than the average product, while thick

products undergo less processing.

Respondent states that the cost centers

allocated based on linear meters

processed are primarily responsible for

setting the dimension of the products

manufactured. Respondent explains that

the allocation of these cost center

expenses over linear meters processed

most accurately recognizes the

differences in processing time in a

manner that was tied directly to the

company’s production and financial

records.

Department’s Position: We agree with

OBV that its method of allocating costs

based on linear meters processed is

reasonable. As a general matter, section

773(f)(1)(A) of the Act provides:

Costs shall normally be calculated based

on the records of the exporter or producer of

the merchandise, if such records are kept in

accordance with the generally accepted

accounting principles of the exporting

country (or the producing country, where

appropriate) and reasonably reflect the costs

associated with the production and sale of

the merchandise.

Accordingly, the Department adheres

to an individual firm’s recording of

costs, if we are satisfied that the

methodology reasonably reflects the

costs of producing the subject

merchandise, and is in accordance with

the generally accepted accounting

principles (GAAP) of the producer’s

home country. See, e.g., Canned

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 60 FR 29553, 29559 (June 5,

1995); Certain Stainless Steel Welded

Pipe from the Republic of Korea; Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 57 FR 53693, 53705

(November 12, 1992); and Furfuryl

Alcohol from South Africa: Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value, 60 FR 22550, 22556 (May 8,

1995). Normal accounting practices

provide an objective standard by which

to measure costs, while allowing

respondents a predictable basis on

which to compute those costs. The

Department will only reject or adjust a

party’s reported costs based upon its

normal accounting practices if those

practices result in an unreasonable

allocation of production costs. See, e.g.,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Large Newspaper

Printing Presses and Components
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 1997 / Notices 51453

Thereof, Whether Assembled or

Unassembled, From Japan, 61 FR 38139,

38154 (May 26, 1992).

At the same time, parties may adapt

their normal cost accounting system to

report data to the Department on a

product-specific basis, provided the

reporting methodology used is

reasonable. See Canned Pineapple From

Thailand, 60 FR at 29559–60. In the

instant proceeding, OBV developed its

linear meters processed allocation

methodology in order to report its cost

of production and constructed value on

a product-specific basis to the

Department. At verification, the

Department requested and analyzed in

detail source documents relating both to

OBV’s normal cost accounting system

and its linear meter allocation

methodology as reported. See OBV

COP/CV Verification Report, dated

March 2, 1997, at 20. OBV argued and

we confirmed that OBV’s normal cost

accounting system, which relied upon

an average cost for all products, did not

account for the cost differences

associated with varying dimensions of

brass sheet products. These cost

differences resulted from processing

time differences between different

thicknesses and grades of brass sheet.

Although we have not necessarily

determined that OBV’s normal cost

accounting system does not reasonably

reflect OBV’s costs for reporting

purposes, we have determined that the

linear meters processed allocation

methodology captures the cost

differences between the varying

dimensions of brass sheet products.

Accordingly, we have determined that

OBV’s submitted methodology for

allocating costs to specific products is

reasonable and we have continued to

rely upon this methodology for the final

results.

Comment 7: Duty Absorption

Petitioners allege that the Department

incorrectly stated in its duty absorption

analysis that dumped sales through

OBV’s affiliate were 1.13 percent of total

U.S. sales. Petitioners state that previous

Department duty absorption findings

indicate the duty absorption finding

should represent the percentage volume

of sales that are dumped over the total

U.S. sales in the POR, rather than the

percentage margin of dumping. As such,

in its final results of this review, the

Department should identify in its duty

absorption finding only the percent of

OBV’s U.S. sales (by quantity) where

dumping was found. Respondent did

not comment on this issue in its reply

brief.

Department’s Position: The

Department agrees with petitioners that

when there are margins for particular

sales, in our final duty absorption

determination, we will provide the

percentage (by volume ) of sales that are

dumped out of the total U.S. sales

during the POR. During this review,

however, the Department has

determined that there is no dumping

margin for OBV on any of its U.S. sales

during the POR. Therefore, the final

duty absorption finding is negative.

Comment 8: Ministerial Error Allegation

Regarding Credit Adjustments

On May 27, 1997, respondent alleged

that the Department made a ministerial

error in the preliminary margin

calculation program regarding certain

credit adjustments. The Department

added these reported credit adjustments

in the calculation of home market

discounts and rebates. In doing so,

respondent claimed that the Department

double-counted these credit adjustments

as the home market gross unit price was

reported net of these credit adjustments.

Accordingly, OBV requested that this

error be corrected prior to the issuance

of the final results. Petitioners did not

comment on this allegation.

Department’s Position: Based on

respondent’s submissions and the

Department’s verification findings, we

agree with OBV that the credit

adjustment field should not have been

included in the calculation of discounts

and rebates. This error has been

corrected in the Department’s final

margin calculation program. The

Department did not issue an amended

preliminary determination because

doing so is not the Department’s

standard practice and the noted error

did not significantly affect the

preliminary results.

Final Results of Review

As a result of this review, we have

determined that the following margin

exists for the period August 1, 1995

through July 31, 1996:

Manufacturer/exporter Percent

margin

Outokumpu Copper Strip B.V.

(OBV) .......................................... 0.00

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States price and foreign market

value may vary from the percentage

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements shall be effective upon

publication of his notice of final results

of review for all shipments of the

subject merchandise from the

Netherlands 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 rates for OBV will be the rate as

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, 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 review, the cash rate will

be 16.99 percent, which was the ‘‘all

others’’ rate as established in the LTFV

investigation. The 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 section 353.26 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 a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

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: September 9, 1997.

Jeffrey P. Bialos,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–26044 Filed 9–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P