# Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-31795 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** December 28, 1994 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-421-701] Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter of this merchandise to the United States and the period August 1, 1990, through July 31, 1991. The review indicates the existence of dumping margins for this period. As a result of this review, the Department has preliminarily determined to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference between United States price (USP) and foreign market value (FMV). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam, Chip Hayes, or John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On August 12, 1988, the Department published in the Federal Register (53 FR 30455) the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands. Based on timely requests for review, on September 18, 1991, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated an administrative review of Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products AB (OBV) for the period August 1, 1990 through July 31, 1991 (56 FR 47185). The Department is now conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). Scope of the Review Imports covered by this review are 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 compositions 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-on-reels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included. The merchandise is classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.20. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter, OBV, and the period August 1, 1990, through July 31, 1991. United States Price We based USP on purchase price (PP) and exporter's sales price (ESP), as appropriate, in accordance with section 772 of the Tariff Act. We calculated PP and ESP based on C.I.F., duty paid prices, delivered either to independent U.S. warehouses or to the customers' premises. In accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses and customs duty. For ESP transactions, we made deductions for U.S. movement expenses, direct selling expenses, indirect selling expenses and U.S. manufacturing costs. U.S. direct selling expenses included warranty and credit expenses, and commissions. U.S. indirect selling expenses included U.S. pre-sale storage costs, U.S. selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), parent company headquarters sales and marketing expenses allocated to U.S. sales, and storage and inventory carrying costs prior to overseas shipment. U.S. manufacturing costs included further processing costs, allocated general and administrative expenses, and allocated profit. For PP transactions, we made deductions for rebates and movement expenses. Movement expenses included brokerage and handling, duty, ocean freight, and U.S. freight. We adjusted USP for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in Siliconmanganese From Venezuela; Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204 (June 17, 1994) (Siliconmanganese). No other adjustments were claimed or allowed. Foreign Market Value The Department used home market price, as defined in section 773 of the Tariff Act, to calculate FMV. Because the home market was viable, we compared U.S. sales with sales of such or similar merchandise in the home market. Home market prices were based on the monthly weighted-average, packed, delivered prices to unrelated purchasers in the home market. We made adjustments, where applicable, for discounts, post-sale inland freight, credit, warranty expenses, and packing. On January 5, 1994, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in The Ad Hoc Committee of AZ-NM-TX-FL Producers of Gray Portland Cement v. United States, No. 93-1239, held that the Department could not deduct home market movement charges from FMV pursuant to its inherent power to fill in gaps in the antidumping statute. Accordingly, we have instead adjusted for those expenses, which were post-sale freight expenses, under the circumstance-of-sale provision of 19 CFR 353.56. We added to FMV packing expenses incurred in the home market for all U.S. sales, and home market VAT. Where USP was based on PP, we further adjusted FMV by adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit, warranties, post-sale warehousing, and commission expenses). We followed our practice of adjusting for indirect selling expenses when there is a commission in only one market, as called for in 19 CFR 353.56(b)(1): the Secretary normally will make a reasonable allowance for other selling expenses if the Secretary makes a reasonable allowance for commissions in one of the markets under consideration and no commission is paid in the other market under consideration. For the PP sales, where a commission was granted in the U.S. market only, we limited the amount classified as home market indirect selling expenses by the sum of the U.S. commission and U.S. indirect selling expenses, and deducted this amount from FMV. For comparison to ESP sales, we adjusted FMV for home market indirect selling expenses, limited to the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales (19 CFR Sec. 353.56(b)(2)). We made adjustments for differences in merchandise. We adjusted the amount of the home market VAT included in FMV in accordance with our decision in Siliconmanganese. We calculated FMV using monthly weighted-average prices of sales of brass sheet and strip having the same characteristics as to alloy, gauge group, width group, temper, form, and coating, as was done in earlier proceedings. The respondent requested that for sales comparison purposes we use different groups of gauges and widths than were requested in the questionnaire. The respondent's suggested gauge groups were more narrowly defined than the gauge groups in the questionnaire, and the respondent's width groups were defined differently than the width groups in the questionnaire. At verification we examined the respondent's manufacturing techniques, costing methodology, and record-keeping systems. We found that the respondent's suggested gauge and width groups correspond more closely to variations in production costs and cost records than the groups in the questionnaire. Therefore, we used the respondent's suggested groups in our analysis. Cost Test Because of petitioner's allegations, we investigated whether OBV sold such or similar merchandise in the home market at prices below the cost of production (COP). In accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, in determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. COP was reported as the sum of costs of materials, labor, factory overhead, selling and general expenses, and packing. We compared COP to home market prices, net of discounts, on a month-by-month basis. When less than 10 percent of the home market sales of a model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any sales of that model. When 10 percent or more, but not more than 90 percent, of the home market sales of a particular model were determined to be below cost, we excluded the below-cost home market sales from our calculation of FMV, provided that these below-cost home market sales were made over an extended period of time. When more than 90 percent of the home market sales of a particular model were made below cost over an extended period of time, we disregarded all home market sales of that model in our calculation of FMV. To determine whether sales below cost had been made over an extended period of time, we compared the number of months in which sales below cost occurred for a particular model to the number of months in which that model was sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales of that model in each month sold. If a model was sold in three or more months, we did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were sales below cost in at least three of the months in which the model was sold. Results of Cost Test We compared individual home market prices with the monthly COP. We tested the home market prices on the basis of the six physical criteria used for product matches, and found that, for certain models, between 10 and 90 percent of home market sales were made at below-COP prices. Since the respondent provided no indication that these sales were at prices that would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time and in the normal course of trade, we disregarded the below-cost sales for those models, if those sales were made over an extended period of time. We used the remaining above-cost sales for comparison purposes. For certain models, we used constructed value (CV) as the basis for FMV when there were no contemporaneous home market sales of such or similar merchandise. We calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. We included the cost of materials, labor, and factory overhead in our calculations. For the respondent's SG&A, we used the statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost of manufacture (COM), or actual SG&A expenses, whichever was greater. For the respondent's profit we used the statutory minimum of eight percent of the sum of the COM and SG&A, or actual profit, whichever was greater. We adjusted the CV for warranty and credit expenses, and the lesser of home market indirect selling expenses or U.S. commissions. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed. Preliminary Results of Review As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV, we preliminarily determine that the following margin exists for the period August 1, 1990 through July 31, 1991: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Margin Manufacturer/exporter (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBV........................................................ 7.44 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date of publication of this notice and may request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the first business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or written comments from interested parties may be submitted no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at the hearing. The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that rate established in the final results of this 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 this review, a prior 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 or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade, in Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (1993), and Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (1993), decided that once an ``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department has determined that in order to implement these decisions, it is appropriate to reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation (or that rate as amended for correction for clerical errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by antidumping duty orders. Accordingly, the ``all others'' rate for this proceeding is 9.49 percent, the rate from the LTFV investigation. This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. 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: December 16, 1994. Susan G. Esserman, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 94-31795 Filed 12-27-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-31795. Public record. Not legal advice.