[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23269-23271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-601]


Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; Termination of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of termination of antidumping duty administrative 
review.

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

SUMMARY: On October 29, 1997, the Department of Commerce published in 
the Federal Register a notice of termination of the administrative 
review of brass sheet and strip from Canada covering imports of subject 
merchandise for the period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. 
Due to a procedural oversight by the Department of Commerce, the 
signature date of this notice of termination, October 21, 1997, was one 
day prior to the date of the respondent's formal written request for 
termination of the 1993 review, which was submitted to the Department 
of Commerce on October 22, 1997. In light of this procedural error, the 
Department of Commerce rescinded its termination of this review and 
reopened the administrative record of this proceeding for comments by 
interested parties on the question of termination of this review. After 
careful review of the comments submitted by interested parties, the 
Department of Commerce decided that this review should be terminated 
and hereby terminates this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Stolz or Thomas Futtner, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230, telephone: (202) 482-4474 or (202) 482-3814, respectively.
    Applicable Statute and Regulations: Unless otherwise stated, all 
citations to the statute and to the Department's regulations are 
references to the provisions as they existed on December 31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 5, 1994, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an 
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet 
and strip from Canada (59 FR 564). On January 21, 1994, a manufacturer/
exporter, Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc., (Wolverine) requested an 
administrative review of its exports of the subject merchandise to the 
United States for the period of review (POR) January 1, 1993, through 
December 31, 1993. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated 
the review on February 17, 1994 (59 FR 7979). Wolverine was the only 
interested party to request this review. On or about October 17, 1997, 
Wolverine notified the Department by telephone of its

[[Page 23270]]

intent to request termination of this review. The Department then 
prepared a notice of termination for the Federal Register pending 
receipt of Wolverine's formal written request. This written request was 
dated and received by the Department on October 22, 1997. The notice of 
termination was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 1997 
(62 FR 56150). However, due to a procedural oversight, the signature 
date of the notice was October 21, 1997, one day prior to actual 
receipt of the written request for termination. In the interest of 
procedural integrity, the Department rescinded its termination of this 
review in order to afford interested parties the opportunity to comment 
as to whether this review should have been terminated. Hussey Copper, 
Ltd.; The Miller Company; Olin Corporation; 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, and United Steelworkers of 
America (AFL-CIO) (collectively, the petitioner) and the respondent 
both submitted comments and rebuttal comments within the time limits 
specified by the Department.

Comments

    On January 16, 1998, Wolverine and the petitioner submitted 
comments regarding the issue of termination. On January 27, 1998, 
Wolverine and the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments with respect 
to the January 16, 1998, comments. The following is a summary and the 
Department's position on each of these comments.
    Comment 1: 1993 Review Virtually Completed, Completion Would Not 
Affect the Timing of the 1996 Review. Wolverine claims that completing 
the 1993 review would further delay completion of the 1996 review. It 
further notes that termination would reduce the Department's 
administrative burden. The petitioner claims that the 1993 review was 
virtually completed and that the Department's resources would not be 
unduly taxed by completing the review. The petitioner further notes 
that completing the 1993 review would not cause additional delays or 
strain the Department's resources in completion of the 1996 review.
    Department Position: Although the review process reached the 
preliminary results stage, many critical steps such as arriving at 
departmental positions and drafting a final analysis, remained to be 
completed. In addition, as in any review, the potential for allegations 
of clerical errors as well as the potential for litigation and remands 
has to be considered a part of the administrative burden. Thus, the 
petitioner is incorrect in claiming that the review was essentially 
completed. Notwithstanding this fact, the Department does not believe 
that completion of the 1993 review would necessarily delay the 
completion of the 1996 review. However, for the reasons stated above, 
we determined that it was not required to complete the 1993 review, and 
that doing so would not have any affect on our determination with 
respect to the 1996 review.
    Comment 2: 1993 Review Result Could Affect Outcome of 1996 Review 
With Regard to Revocation. The petitioner asserts that the final 
outcome of the 1993 review could affect the Department's pending 
determination with respect to revocation in the 1996 review. The 
petitioner asserts that completion of this review is necessary to 
support a historical record of dumping spanning beyond the three years 
of zero or de minimis margins on which the revocation request is based. 
The petitioner argues that an analysis of such an expanded time-frame 
would demonstrate that Wolverine cannot ship to the U.S. in significant 
commercial quantities without dumping. Wolverine notes that although 
the petitioner claims that the 1993 review could affect the outcome of 
the 1996 review, the Department bases each of its determinations on the 
factual record of the relevant segment of the proceeding.
    Department Position: The Department cannot find merit in the 
petitioner's assertion, which was not supported by any compelling 
argument and/or factual information. The petitioner has not established 
on the record of this 1993 review the precise manner in which the 
completed results of this review would potentially have a bearing on 
the outcome of the revocation and other issues before the Department 
with respect to the 1996 review. Even were the record of the 1993 
review to show a marked decline in U.S. shipments as Wolverine's 
dumping margins became zero or de minimis, this by itself would not 
necessarily lead the Department to determine that these shipments were 
not at less than commercial quantities, and would not in itself support 
denial of revocation as requested in the 1996 review.
    Comment 3: Department Obligated to Consider Petitioner's Interests. 
The petitioner claims that the Department is obligated to consider the 
interests of the domestic industry, noting that the primary purpose of 
the antidumping statute is to protect domestic industry. Wolverine 
asserts that the petitioner's claim that the Department is obligated to 
consider the interests of the domestic industry is not based on any 
authority, law, or regulation. Wolverine asserts that it was the only 
party to request the review and had subsequently requested termination. 
Wolverine states that it is the only party affected by termination and 
that the petitioner has no legal basis on which to object to 
termination. Finally, Wolverine notes that the petitioner was served by 
hand a copy of the request for termination on October 22, 1997, but did 
not object to termination until after publication of the termination 
notice in the Federal Register, seven days later.
    Department Position: The fact that Wolverine was the only party to 
request the review has not been disputed and it has been the 
Department's practice to routinely terminate reviews at the request of 
an interested party when no other interested party has requested the 
review. In this case, Wolverine was the only party to request the 
review and subsequently requested that the review be terminated. 
Although Wolverine's request to terminate this review was submitted 
after the 90-day time limit for termination provided for at section 
353.22(a)(5) of our regulations, that provision also states that the 
Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary determines it is 
reasonable to do so. In fact, it may be considered that the domestic 
industry's interest is being served in that upon termination of this 
review, liquidation of affected entries will be at 21.39 percent, the 
cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry, whereas the dumping 
margin preliminarily determined in this review was 1.39 percent.
    Comment 4: Department Not Obligated to Notify Petitioner of 
Termination. Wolverine notes that the Department was not required by 
its regulations to consult with interested parties or consider comments 
in its decision to terminate the review.
    Department Position: We agree with Wolverine. The only party to 
request this review, Wolverine, subsequently requested that we 
terminate this review. In addition, the petitioner was duly served with 
a copy of the respondent's request to terminate this review on October 
22, 1997, in advance of publication of our original termination notice 
on October 29, 1997. Upon the petitioner's October 30, 1997, objection 
to termination, although the Department was under no legal obligation 
to do so, in the interest of procedural integrity, the Department 
reopened the record of this review after the original termination to 
consider interested party comments regarding termination.

[[Page 23271]]

Termination

    The Department has considered all comments submitted by interested 
parties and has determined that this review should be terminated. 
Because Wolverine was the only party to request this review, and 
subsequently withdrew its request, and because we find that there are 
no other compelling reasons to continue this review, we are terminating 
this review.
    The Department shall instruct the Customs Service to liquidate all 
appropriate entries. Shipments entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption during the January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993, 
POR will be liquidated at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time 
of entry. Insofar as the final results for the more current POR, 
January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995, were published prior to 
this termination notice, the cash deposit instructions contained in the 
notice covering the January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, POR will 
continue to apply to all shipments to the United States of subject 
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or 
after April 8, 1997 (the date of publication of the final results of 
review covering the 1995 POR).
    This notice also serves as 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 the review period. Failure to comply with this 
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APOs) of thier responsibility 
concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO 
in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's regulations. 
Timely within notification of the return or destruction of APO 
materials is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations 
and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

    Dated: April 15, 1998.
Maria Harris Tildon,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-11277 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M