Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16759

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–601]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada;

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 December 6, 1996, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published the preliminary

results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on brass

sheet and strip (BSS) from Canada (61

FR 64666). This review covers exports

of this merchandise to the United States

by one manufacturer/exporter,

Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc.

(Wolverine), during the period January

1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. The

review indicates the existence of no

dumping margins.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. Based on our

analysis of the comments received, we

have changed our results from those

published in the preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen McPhillips or Linda Ludwig,

Office of AD/CVD 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) 482–3019 or 482–3833,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Tariff Act), are references

to the provisions effective January 1,

1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In

addition, unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Department’s regulations

are to the current regulations, as

amended by the interim regulations

published in the Federal Register on

May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of BSS, other than leaded

and tin BSS. The chemical composition

of the covered products is currently

defined in the Copper Development

Association’s (C.D.A.) 200 series or the

Unified Numbering System (U.N.S.)

C2000. Products whose chemical

composition is defined by other C.D.A.

or U.N.S. series are not covered by this

order.

The physical dimensions of the

products covered by this review are BSS

of 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. Coil, wound-on-reels (traverse

wound), and cut-to-length products are

included. These products are currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) subheadings 7409.21.00

and 7409.29.00. Although the HTS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and for Customs Service

(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, 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 review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Wolverine, and the period

January 1, 1995 through December 31,

1995.

Analysis of Comments Received

On January 6, 1997, we received a

case brief from the petitioners, Hussey

Copper, Ltd., the Miller Company, Olin

Corporation—Brass Group, 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

Steelworkers of America (AFL–CIO/

CLC). We received a rebuttal brief from

the respondent, Wolverine, on January

13, 1997.

Comment 1: The petitioners challenge

Wolverine’s assertion that it sold its

merchandise at three distinct levels of

trade in its home market during the

period of review (POR). According to

the petitioners, the fact that Wolverine

only provided information on selling

(supporting) functions to two customer

groups reflects the lack of evidence to

distinguish general jobber distributors

from processing distributors. The

petitioners also contend that Wolverine

failed to provide evidence to

substantiate its assertion that

sufficiently dissimilar selling functions

were performed by the two remaining

customer categories, distributors vs.

OEMs. The petitioners maintain that

Wolverine’s own data show that OEMs

and distributors purchased comparable

quantities of reroll and non-reroll

materials. Thus, according to the

petitioners, there is no distinction in the

level of trade based on the types of

products purchased by Wolverine’s

customers.

In response to Wolverine’s claim that

OEM customers purchase cut-to-length

material which requires a distinct

packaging from coils because of its

rectangular shape, the petitioners argue

that the type of packing used is based

on the form of the material, not the

customer category. In addition, the

petitioners point out that although

Wolverine packs the subject

merchandise for the U.S. and home

market in four forms, it reported one

packing cost by dividing total packing

costs by the number of pounds shipped.

The petitioners conclude that if

Wolverine did not make a distinction

among the forms when it reported its

per-unit packing costs, the Department

should not use differences in packing as

the basis for distinguishing levels of

trade.

The petitioners maintain that the

information submitted by Wolverine

does not show that it provided different

technical services and product support

for different level of customers. In fact,

the petitioners point out that Wolverine,

in its initial response to the

Department’s questionnaire, stated that

it incurred no technical service

expenses on its sales of the subject

merchandise. Wolverine’s assertion, in

its supplemental questionnaire

response, that it provides a higher level

of product support to its OEM

customers is not supported by evidence

on the record in the petitioners’ view.

They point out that Wolverine’s home

market sales listing shows that both

customer categories purchase products

with identical physical characteristics

and that the quantities purchased by

Wolverine’s OEM customers were

comparable to, and sometimes greater

than, those purchased by distributors.

As for Wolverine’s contention that as

one of the two remaining producers of

brass sheet and strip in Canada, it is an

established custom producer with an

established client base, petitioners state

that logically these established

customers should not require technical/

product support from Wolverine.

The petitioners state that Wolverine’s

claim that it provided a significantly
16760 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

greater level of freight and delivery

services to its OEM customers than to its

distributor customers is not supported

by Wolverine’s reported inland freight

expenses, which did not reflect a cost

difference based on the customer

category. In petitioners’ view, the

selection of different terms of delivery

by the two customer categories is

meaningless. Moreover, the fact that

Wolverine is reimbursed by the

customer for one shipment method and

not another is irrelevant because,

according to petitioners, Wolverine

would simply pass on its freight

expense in the form of higher prices.

Contrary to Wolverine’s contention

that it devotes more administrative

resources (i.e., for traffic, sales, and

accounting work) to its OEM customers,

the petitioners assert that this is due to

the volume of sales to that group and

not the customized nature of the

products sold to OEMs.

In response to Wolverine’s argument

that during the POR all of its return/

credits were to OEM customers, the

petitioners contend that Wolverine

would follow the same return policy

with distributors, and, therefore

Wolverine’s warranty policy is the same

regardless of the customer category.

The petitioners state that Wolverine

failed to differentiate the selling

function it performed for its OEM and

distributor customers, providing

identical or similar services to its

alleged two customer levels. The

petitioners state that in Dynamic

Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit or

Above from the Republic of Korea:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review, 61 FR 36029,

36031, 36032 (July 9, 1996) the

Department identified one level of trade

in the respondent’s home market

because the respondents’ direct sales to

its home market customers, whether

made to OEMs or to distributors,

included the same functions. Therefore,

the petitioners conclude, the

Department must deny Wolverine’s

claimed level-of-trade adjustment.

Wolverine counters that in its

response to the Department’s

supplemental questionnaire, it provided

substantial and detailed information

that distinguished between sales made

to customers in two distinct levels of

trade, (i.e., original equipment

manufacturers (OEMs) and distributors).

The petitioners’ arguments, according to

Wolverine, are based exclusively on

their own ‘‘analysis’’ of the Wolverine’s

submitted data, and rely on no other

information in the record.

Wolverine states that the example

cited by the petitioners to support their

contention that both OEMs and

distributors buy products made from

non-reroll and reroll material, and thus,

customer category is irrelevant, is

consistent with its position that the

OEM customer tends to purchase more

re-rolled product compared to the

distributor customer. Wolverine

maintains that it is not contending that

one customer group never purchases

products from non-reroll material and

the other customer group never

purchases products made from reroll

material, and vice versa. According to

Wolverine, it has simply stated that

when customers purchase heavy gauge

material, the OEM customer is likely to

require a more customized product,

while the less demanding technical

requirements of the distributor will

typically allow the product to be

produced from non-reroll material.

Wolverine contends that the

petitioners have missed the point

regarding the distinctions in packing

and freight between the two customer

groups. With respect to packing,

Wolverine states that the Department

allows packing adjustments only for

costs directly attributable to the packing

operation (i.e., materials, labor, and

related overhead). According to

Wolverine, the packing adjustment does

not take into account other indirect

expenses (e.g., the need to maintain

inventories of different packing

materials, to establish packing codes for

different packing types, to track product

packed differently through the

production process, to institute different

quality control and inspection

standards, etc.). Wolverine concludes

that the fact that having to manufacture

and sell product in both cut-to-length

and coil form requires Wolverine to

provide other services to its customers

in addition to those accounted for in the

Department’s packing cost adjustment.

Similarly, Wolverine contends that

petitioners’ conjecture that Wolverine is

reimbursed for the freight costs that it

incurs on sales that are sold on pre-paid

and delivered terms is irrelevant

because ‘‘[T]he process of establishing

whether separate levels of trade exist is

distinct from both the margin

calculation and the level of trade

adjustment (see, Certain Pasta from

Italy, Final Determination of Sales at

Less-Than-Fair-Value, 61 FR 30326,

30338 June 6, 1996)(Pasta)).

Wolverine rejects the petitioners’

argument that Wolverine’s failure to

request a circumstance-of-sale (COS)

adjustment for differences in technical

service expenses between the U.S. and

home markets is evidence that the

additional product support that

Wolverine provides its OEM customers

is irrelevant to the Department’s level of

trade analysis. Wolverine claims this is

inconsistent with the requirements of

the statute and the Department’s policy.

Wolverine states that in conducting its

LOT analysis, the Department considers

the specific types of sales functions and

services that the producer provides to

its customers and is not concerned with

whether the particular service or

function in question is sufficiently welldefined to rise to the level of a COS

adjustment. According to Wolverine, the

Department generally considers travel

expenses and contract services as an

example of a technical service eligible

for a COS adjustment and the fact that

it did not claim such expenses does not

compromise the Department’s ability to

consider the higher level of product

support that Wolverine provides to its

OEM customers.

In regard to warranty expenses,

Wolverine points out that the

petitioners do not dispute the fact that

all of Wolverine’s home market

warranty expenses were incurred on

sales to OEM customers. In addition,

Wolverine states that petitioners claim

that Wolverine would incur the same

warranty expenses with respect to

distributors is pure speculation on their

part.

Wolverine concludes that the

petitioners have failed to identify any

legitimate points that undermine the

integrity of the Department’s level-oftrade analysis and urges the Department

to conduct the same analysis made in

the Preliminary Results of this review.

Department’s Position: We agree with

the petitioners. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act directs the Department to make

an adjustment for differences in level of

trade only if the following two

conditions are met: (1) there is a

difference in the levels of trade,

involving the performance of different

selling activities, and (2) the difference

in level of trade affects price

comparability, as demonstrated by a

pattern of consistent price differences

between the sales at the different levels

of trade in the market in which normal

value is determined.

In order to determine whether sales in

the comparison market are at a different

level of trade than the export price or

CEP, we examine whether the

comparison sales were at different

stages in the marketing process than the

export price or CEP. We make this

determination on the basis of a review

of the distribution system in the

comparison market, including selling

functions, class of customer, and the

level of selling expenses for each type

of sale. Different stages of marketing

necessarily involve differences in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16761

selling functions, but differences in

selling functions, even substantial ones,

are not alone sufficient to establish a

difference in the level of trade.

Similarly, while customer categories

such as ‘‘distributor’’ and ‘‘wholesaler’’

may be useful in identifying different

levels of trade, they are insufficient in

themselves to establish that there is a

difference in the level of trade. See

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products and Certain Cut-toLength Carbon Steel Plate from Canada;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR

51891, 51896 (October 4, 1996);

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof from France, et al., Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 2081,

2105 (January 15, 1997) (AFBs VI).

While neither the statute nor the

Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA) defines level of trade, the

structure of the relevant provision in the

statute (section 773(a)(7)(A)) uses the

term ‘‘level of trade’’ as a concept

distinct from selling activities.

Specifically, this sub-section allows for

a level-of-trade adjustment where there

is a difference in levels of trade and that

difference ‘‘involves’’ the performance

of different selling activities. The SAA

(at 829) also ascribes a meaning to level

of trade that suggests that an analysis of

selling activities alone is insufficient to

establish the level of trade by stating

that two sales with some common

selling activities could be at different

levels of trade, See, e.g., AFBs VI, at

2107.

Although the customer type is an

important indicator in identifying

differences in levels of trade, the

existence of different classes of

customers is not sufficient to establish

a difference in the levels of trade.

Accordingly, we consider the class of

customer as one factor, along with

selling functions and the selling

expenses associated with these

functions, in determining the stage of

marketing, i.e., the level of trade

associated with the sales in question, Id.

Although Wolverine has documented

differences in costs between the selling

activities performed for OEM customers

and distributor customers, it has not

made the requisite showing that there is

a difference in the selling functions

provided on sales to OEMs and sales to

distributors. While Wolverine sells to

different classes of customers, nothing

on the record indicates that its sales are

made at different marketing stages, as

evidenced by an additional layer of

selling activities provided to one

customer category as opposed to the

other. For example, Wolverine argues

that the packing for OEM merchandise

is more expensive than the packing

needed for the merchandise sold to

distributors. Since both OEM and

distributors bought cut-to-length

material and coils, the distinct

packaging characteristics of each

product do not distinguish Wolverine’s

OEM customers from its distributor

customers. In addition, Wolverine

reported only one per-unit packing cost

for its four forms of packaging, implying

that there was no significant difference

between the packaging provided to the

two different classes of customers.

Wolverine’s statement in its original

response to the Department’s

questionnaire that it incurred no

technical service expenses on its sales of

the subject merchandise does not

support its claim of two different levels

of trade based on the greater product

support it offered to its OEM customers

as opposed to that provided to its

distributor customers. Furthermore, the

fact that all three terms of payment (i.e.,

pre-paid and delivered, pre-paid and

charged, collect) were not only available

but used by both distributors and OEMs,

does not support Wolverine’s claim of

two distinct levels of trade based on the

terms each class of customer selects.

Wolverine has also failed to claim any

specific differences between the

warranty policy offered to its OEM

customers and that offered to its

distributor customers.

Wolverine states that due to the

customized nature of the products

demanded by OEMs, it expends a

greater proportion of the company’s

administrative resources (i.e., for traffic,

sales, and accounting work) on OEM

sales than it does for distributor sales.

First, the relative time spent on

servicing one customer type as opposed

to another is not necessarily a basis for

determining that there are different

levels of trade, especially since

Wolverine has not quantified these

differences on a level-of-trade basis.

Secondly, Wolverine’s statement that it

produces all brass sheet and strip

material to order appears to contradict

its implication that only the OEM

merchandise is customized (see

Supplemental Questionnaire Response,

October 24, 1996, p. 8).

We note that Wolverine has

demonstrated that there are some

differences in the selling functions it

performs for its OEM customers and

those it performs for its distributor

customers. However, the fact that there

are two different classes of customers

and that one class may sometimes

require a greater degree of

administrative resources or technical

and product support, or more costly

packing requirements and freight

expenses on Wolverine’s part, is not in

itself sufficient to determine that there

are different levels of trade. None of

these services involve an additional

layer of selling activity performed by

Wolverine for sales of the subject

merchandise to an OEM customer as

opposed to a distributor customer. For

example, if one class of customer

required packaging for its merchandise

and the other class required none, this

may suggest that there is an additional

layer of activity involved. As a further

example, if Wolverine’s OEM customer

required technical training support,

while its distributor customer provided

its own technical training, this could

also serve as support for an argument

that the sale of the subject merchandise

would occur at different marketing

stages for the two classes of customers.

Wolverine, however, has not established

any such clear, quantifiable distinctions

between its claimed levels of trade.

Since it has not been established that

different levels of trade exist, there is no

need to determine whether there is a

quantifiable price difference between

levels of trade that would warrant an

adjustment. Therefore, for these final

results the Department has used home

market sales to both OEMs and

distributors for comparison purposes.

This represents a change from our

Preliminary Results.

Comment 2: The petitioners urge the

Department not to use Wolverine’s

entire product control numbers to match

Wolverine’s U.S. and home market sales

because Wolverine’s product control

numbering system includes an element

in the third position that does not reflect

the physical characteristics of the

finished brass sheet and strip.

Specifically, in petitioners’ view, the

alloy code in Wolverine’s product

coding system is not based exclusively

on the physical characteristics (i.e., the

chemical composition) of the finished

brass sheet and strip, but is partially

based on the source of the input

materials that were used to produce the

subject merchandise.

The petitioners question Wolverine’s

contention that the brass reroll stock it

claims it purchases from unrelated

suppliers in order to meet the

requirements of low impurities and

heavy gauges for certain applications

undergoes a very high reduction which,

in turn, imparts a uniform fine grain to

the finished product. The petitioners

cite an industry expert (see October 7,

1996 Letter from Copper & Brass

Fabricators Council, Inc. to the

Secretary of Commerce) who states that

the distinction between non-reroll and
16762 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices

reroll material and the attendant claim

of differing purity levels is incorrect and

that regardless of whether brass sheet

and strip is produced from non-reroll or

reroll material, the product is identical

in alloy, sold in the same markets, and

consumed in the same end uses. The

petitioners maintain that the industry

expert’s opinion is supported by

Wolverine’s reported sales data which

shows that during the POR the same

customers purchased brass sheet and

strip from both reroll and non-reroll

materials for their end uses. The

petitioners state that even if Wolverine’s

claim that certain of its customers

require brass sheet and strip of a finer

grain size is true, this has no bearing on

whether the finished product was

produced from reroll or non-reroll

materials because the same customers

purchased brass sheet and strip made

from reroll input materials and nonreroll input materials. Moreover, the

petitioners assert that the grain sizes of

finished brass sheet and strip depends

on the rolling and annealing process

used to produce the product, rather than

the source of the raw materials.

According to the petitioners, a reroll vs.

non-reroll designation is redundant and

does not serve to distinguish the

physical characteristics of the finished

brass sheet and strip and, therefore,

must not be used as a criterion for

matching purposes.

The petitioners note that Section

771(16)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

amended, defines the term ‘‘foreign like

product’’ as ‘‘the subject merchandise

and other merchandise which is

identical in physical characteristics

with, and was produced in the same

country by the same person as that

merchandise.’’ (emphasis added). The

petitioners point out that the

Department has conducted nine

investigations of brass sheet and strip

products from nine countries and has

never considered the differentiation

between reroll and non-reroll inputs in

product matching. According to the

petitioners, producers’ selection of scrap

materials and virgin materials for the

production of brass sheet and strip

depends largely on the availability and

the cost of each raw material rather than

physical property of the finished

products.

The petitioners conclude that the

Department, for this administrative

review, must follow its stated practice of

matching Wolverine’s U.S. sales to

foreign like products based on the

physical characteristics of the finished

brass sheet and strip, and thus,

disregard the third position of

Wolverine’s reported product control

numbers.

The respondent argues that the

Department properly included all

reported physical characteristics,

including grain size, in its product

comparisons. Respondent states that the

petitioners themselves acknowledge that

grain size is a relevant commercial

factor for brass consumers, but appear to

limit the Department’s ability to account

for grain size to the criteria contained in

ASTM specifications. According to the

respondent, nothing in the U.S.

antidumping law or the Department’s

own regulations or precedents restricts

the Department from using factors in

addition to those specified by ASTM in

determining appropriate product

comparison criteria. The respondent

maintains that it has repeatedly

demonstrated to the Department’s

satisfaction that grain size differences

are relevant to customers that require

smooth polished surfaces in their

finished products and that it can

achieve this required quality product

only with re-roll material. The

respondent concludes, therefore, that

Wolverine’s product codes and control

numbers which differentiate reroll and

non-reroll material do properly reflect

all relevant product characteristics.

The respondent terms the petitioners’

argument that the same customers

purchase brass sheet and strip made

from both re-roll and non-reroll input

materials irrelevant, stating that the

same customers, at any given time, may

require both reroll and non-reroll

inputs, depending upon the desired

grain quality required. Wolverine urges

the Department to continue to use, in its

final results, the same analysis with

respect to re-roll products as was

applied in the preliminary results.

Department’s Position: Upon further

study of the product code designations

and the comments submitted by the

interested parties, we do not feel that

Wolverine has adequately made its case

for the necessity or appropriateness of

introducing an additional element in its

product coding system which

distinguishes reroll from non-reroll raw

material input. In this instance, the

reroll vs. non-reroll designation of the

raw material input does not describe a

physical difference in the finished

product per se. This is a change from

the preliminary results.

The Department does not normally

consider the source of a given input

material as a model match

characteristic. For example, if two

different plants supply a particular

feedstock used in the production of a

particular product, it is our

longstanding practice to consider both

feedstock materials to be identical,

regardless of the difference in

production costs. Similarly, we do not

distinguish between two input materials

if one feedstock is purchased and the

other is produced internally. Thus, as a

general matter, it would be inconsistent

with the Department’s practice to

segregate reroll from non-reroll material

on this basis alone.

Respondent appears to be trying to

use the distinction between reroll and

non-reroll material as a proxy for

differences in grain size or purity of the

finished product. While we agree that

grain size or purity could potentially be

a relevant commercial factor for brass

sheet and strip consumers, respondent

did not report information on either of

these physical characteristics.

Respondent provided no quantitative or

statistical data describing differences in

grain size or purity between various

brass products, how these differences

relate to customer requirements, or how

these differences relate to the source of

the raw material input (i.e., reroll vs.

non-reroll).

Finally, Wolverine fails to

distinguish, in any quantifiable way,

how the reroll vs. non-reroll code

designates a physical characteristic

different from those codes assigned for

temper and gauge.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we have

determined that no margin exists for

Wolverine during the period 1/1/95

through 12/31/95. The Department will

issue appraisement instructions directly

to the Customs Service.

Manufacturer/Exporter Period of review Margin

Wolverine Tube (Canada), Inc. ............................................................................................................................ 01/01/95–12/31/95 0.22

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of this notice of final results

of review for all shipments of brass

sheet and strip from Canada within the

scope of the order entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 67 / Tuesday, April 8, 1997 / Notices 16763

the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate

for the reviewed company will be zero;

(2) for previously reviewed or

investigated companies not listed above,

the 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 less-than-fairvalue (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) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate of

8.10 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 final reminder

to importers of their responsibility

under 19 CFR § 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 subsequent

assessment of double antidumping

duties.

Notification of Interested Parties

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 § 353.34(d). Timely written

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. Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with Section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–8953 Filed 4–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–820]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Ferrosilicon From Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Katt or Sal Tauhidi, AD/CVD

Enforcement Group II, Office Four,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–0498 or (202) 482–4851,

respectively.

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 to the

Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act (URAA).

Preliminary Results

We preliminarily determine that sales

of ferrosilicon from Brazil have been

made below normal value (NV). If these

preliminary results are adopted in our

final results of administrative review,

we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries.

Case History

On March 4, 1996 (61 FR 8238), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ of

the antidumping duty order on

Ferrosilicon from Brazil covering the

period March 1, 1995, through February

29, 1996. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(2), in March 1996, Companhia

Brasileira Carbureto De Calcio (CBCC)

and Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais

(Minasligas) (collectively the

respondents) requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of their shipments of ferrosilicon

to the United States during this period.

On April 25, 1996, the Department

published a notice of initiation of

administrative review (61 FR 18379).

The Department is now conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

On May 8, 1996, the Department

issued an antidumping duty

questionnaire to CBCC and Minasligas.

This questionnaire instructed the

respondents to respond to sections A

(corporate structure, accounting

practices, markets and merchandise), B

(home market sales), C (United States

sales) and D (cost of production/

constructed value) of the questionnaire.

CBCC and Minasligas submitted

questionnaire responses in July 1996.

The Department issued supplemental

questionnaires to CBCC and Minasligas

in September 1996, December 1996, and

January 1997. Responses to the

supplemental questionnaires were

received in October 1996, and January

1997.

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for completion of a

preliminary determination if it

determines that it is not practicable to

complete the review within the

statutory time limit. On November 26,

1996, the Department extended the time

limit for the preliminary results in this

case. See Extension of Time Limits of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, (61 FR 64322) (December 4,

1996).

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we verified the sales and cost

questionnaire responses of CBCC and

Minasligas during February 1997. The

results of these verifications are

outlined in the public versions of the

verification reports dated March 19,

1997, on file in room B–099 of the main

Commerce building.

Scope of Review

The merchandise subject to this

review is ferrosilicon, a ferroalloy

generally containing, by weight, not less

than four percent iron, more than eight

percent but not more than 96 percent

silicon, not more than 10 percent

chromium, not more than 30 percent

manganese, not more than three percent

phosphorous, less than 2.75 percent

magnesium, and not more than 10

percent calcium or any other element.

Ferrosilicon is a ferroalloy produced by

combining silicon and iron through

smelting in a submerged-arc furnace.

Ferrosilicon is used primarily as an

alloying agent in the production of steel

and cast iron. It is also used in the steel

industry as a deoxidizer and a reducing

agent, and by cast iron producers as an

inoculant.

Ferrosilicon is differentiated by size

and by grade. The sizes express the

maximum and minimum dimensions of

the lumps of ferrosilicon found in a

given shipment. Ferrosilicon grades are

defined by the percentages by weight of

contained silicon and other minor

elements. Ferrosilicon is most