[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6134-6136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2851]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-601]


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

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

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

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

SUMMARY:  In response to a request by Hussey Copper Ltd., The Miller 
Company, Olin Corporation, 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'') (collectively 
the ``Petitioners''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
brass sheet and strip from Canada. The review covers one manufacturer/
exporter of this merchandise to the United States, Wolverine Tube 
(Canada), Inc., (``Wolverine''). The period covered is January 1, 1998, 
through December 31, 1998. As a result of the review, the Department 
has preliminarily determined that a dumping margin exists for this 
respondent for the covered period.
    We invite interested parties 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:  February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Paige Rivas or Nithya Nagarajan, 
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import Administration, 
Office IV, Group II , International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0651 or 482-5253, 
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 regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 
351 (1999).

Background

    The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') published an 
antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada on January 
12, 1987 (52 FR 1217). On January 14, 1999, the Department published a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada (64 FR 
2470). On January 29, 1999, the Petitioners requested an administrative 
review of Wolverine's exports of the subject merchandise to the United 
States for the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998. In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213 we published a notice of initiation of 
the review on February 22, 1999 (64 FR 8542). The Department is now 
conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of 
the Act.
    On April 22, 1999, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to 
Wolverine. Wolverine submitted the response to Sections A, B, C, and D 
on July 9, 1999. On July 29, 1999, the Petitioners submitted comments 
with respect to Wolverine's questionnaire which response.
    We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Wolverine on October 13, 
1999. The response to this supplemental questionnaire was submitted by 
Wolverine on November 12, 1999. On December 2, 1999, the Petitioners 
submitted comments with respect to Wolverine's supplement questionnaire 
response.
    On December 20, 1999 we issued a second supplemental questionnaire 
to Wolverine. Wolverine filed its response to the second supplemental 
questionnaire which was received on January 11, 2000.
    On January 28, 2000, the Department issued its third supplemental 
questionnaire to Wolverine. The response to the supplemental 
questionnaire is not due until after the preliminary results are 
completed. Therefore, we will take that response into account for the 
final results of review.
    Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend 
the deadline for issuing a preliminary determination in an 
administrative review if it determines that it is not practicable to 
complete the preliminary review within the statutory time limit of 245 
days. On October 19, 1999, the Department published a notice of 
extension of the time limit for the preliminary results in this case to 
January 31, 2000. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Time Limit, 64 
FR 56308 (October 19, 1999).

Scope of Review

    The product covered by this review is brass sheet and strip 
(``BSS''), other than leaded and tinned BSS. 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 (``HTS'') item numbers 
7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although the HTS item numbers are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
scope of this order remains dispositive. Pursuant to the final 
affirmative determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty 
order, covering the period September 1, 1990, through September 30, 
1991, we determined that brass plate used in the production of BSS 
falls within the scope of the antidumping duty order on BSS from 
Canada. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Affirmative 
Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 33610 
(June 18, 1993).
    The period of review (``POR'') is January 1, 1998, through December 
31, 1998. The review involves one manufacturer/exporter, Wolverine.

United States Price (``USP'')

    In calculating the price to the United States, we used export price 
(``EP'') as

[[Page 6135]]

defined in section 772(a) of the Act because the subject merchandise 
was sold to unaffiliated U.S. purchasers in the United States prior to 
the date of importation into the United States and the use of 
constructed export price was not indicated by the facts of the record.
    We calculated EP based on prices that were for merchandise 
delivered to the customers' premises. In accordance with section 
772(c)(1) of the Act, we adjusted the gross USP for U.S. brokerage and 
handling, foreign and U.S. inland freight, and customs duty. No other 
adjustments to EP were claimed or allowed.

Normal Value (``NV'')

A. Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared Wolverine's volume of home market sales of the foreign like 
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Because Wolverine's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a 
viable basis for calculating NV for Wolverine.

B. Below Cost of Production Test

    Because we disregarded sales below the cost of production (``COP'') 
in the 1997 POR, the most-recently completed segment of this 
proceeding, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales 
of the foreign like product under consideration for determining NV in 
this review may have been at prices below the COP, within the meaning 
of section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. See Notice of Final Results of 
Review and Intent Not to Revoke Order in Part: Brass Sheet and Strip 
from Canada, 64 FR 46344 (August 25, 1999) (``BS&S 1997''). Therefore, 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP 
investigation of sales by Wolverine. In accordance with section 
773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of materials 
and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus 
selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A'') and the cost 
of all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in 
condition packed ready for shipment. We relied on the home market sales 
and COP information Wolverine provided in its questionnaire responses. 
After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of subject 
BSS were made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time 
in substantial quantities, and whether such prices permitted the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. To conduct 
this test, we compared model-specific COPs to the reported home market 
prices less any applicable movement charges.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than twenty 
percent of Wolverine's home market sales of a model were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities.'' Where twenty 
percent or more of Wolverine's home market sales of a particular model 
were at prices less than the COP, we determined that such sales were 
made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act. To determine 
whether such sales were at prices which would not permit the full 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act, we compared home market prices to 
the weighted-average COPs for the POR. The results of our cost test for 
Wolverine indicated that for certain home market models less than 
twenty percent of the sales of the model were at prices below COP. We 
therefore retained all sales of these models in our analysis and used 
them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test for Wolverine also 
indicated that for certain other home market models more than twenty 
percent of the home market sales within an extended period of time were 
at prices below COP and would not permit the full recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time. In accordance with section 
773(b)(1) of the Act, we therefore excluded the below-cost sales of 
these models from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales 
as the basis for determining NV.

C. Differences in Levels of Trade (``LOT'')

    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the 
Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') at 829-831, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same LOT as the U.S. sales. When the Department is unable to find sales 
in the comparison market at the same LOT as the U.S. sale(s), the 
Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign market at 
different LOTs, and adjust NV if appropriate. The NV LOT is that of the 
starting-price sales in the home market. As the Department explained in 
Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 17148, 17156 (April 9, 
1997), for both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for the LOT 
analysis is the sale from the exporter to the importer.
    To determine whether comparison market NV sales are at a different 
LOT than the U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and 
selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer 
and unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a 
different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, as 
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make a LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 17, 1997), and Granular 
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 25826 (May 11, 1998).
    In its questionnaire responses, Wolverine stated that there were no 
significant differences in its selling activities by customer 
categories between markets. Therefore, Wolverine did not distinguish 
between LOTs for this review and did not claim a LOT adjustment. Our 
analysis of the questionnaire responses detailing the selling functions 
(e.g., strategic and economic planning; technical support; engineering 
services; procurement services; packing; computer, legal, accounting, 
audit, and/or business-systems development; and freight and delivery 
arrangements) provided by Wolverine in the U.S. and home markets leads 
us to conclude that sales in those markets are not made at different 
LOTs. Accordingly, we preliminarily find that all sales in the home 
market and the U.S. market were made at the same LOT. Therefore, all 
price comparisons are at the same LOT and no adjustment pursuant to 
section 773(a)(7) of the Act is necessary. For a complete discussion, 
see Preliminary Results Analysis Memo (``Analysis Memo''), dated 
January 31, 2000, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of 
the main Commerce Department Building.

D. Model-Matching

    We calculated NV using prices of BSS products having the same 
characteristics as to form, temper, gauge, width, and

[[Page 6136]]

alloy as the U.S. products. We used the same gauge and width groupings 
and the same model-match methodology in this review as in the last 
completed administrative review. See BS&S 1997. Also, see Analysis 
Memo.
    We based NV on the price at which the foreign like product is first 
sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial 
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, and at the same LOT as 
the export price, as defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.
    We reduced NV for warranty and home market credit expenses, and 
increased NV for U.S. credit expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii), due to differences in circumstances of sale. We 
reduced NV for home market movement expenses, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii); and for packing costs incurred in the home 
market, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i); and increased NV to 
account for U.S. packing expenses in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(A).

Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of our comparison of EP to NV, we preliminarily 
determine that a 3.33 percent dumping margin exists for Wolverine for 
the period January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1998.

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific 
assessment rates. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed 
sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each 
importer. We will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the 
resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the 
subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the 
relevant order during the review period.

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 Wolverine, the sole respondent covered by this review, will be the 
rate established in the final results of this administrative review; 
(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 these reviews, a prior review, or the original LTFV 
investigations, 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 manufacturer nor the exporter 
is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate 
will continue to be 8.10 percent, the ``all others'' rate established 
in the LTFV investigations. These deposit requirements, when imposed, 
shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the 
next administrative reviews.
    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 five days after the publication of 
this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit 
written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs 
must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this 
notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case 
briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit 
for filing case briefs. 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. Case and rebuttal 
briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a 
public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal 
briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if 
requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of 
rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of 
publication of these preliminary results. The Department will publish 
the final results of this administrative review, including the results 
of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a 
hearing not later than 120 days after the date of publication of these 
preliminary results.

Notification to Parties

    This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 31, 2000.
Holly Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2851 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P