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

[[Page 20670]]

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: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted 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 and the period January 1, 1992 through

December 31, 1992. The review indicates the existence of dumping

margins for this period.

We have preliminarily determined that U.S. sales have been made

below the foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are

adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct

U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference

between the United States price (USP) and the FMV.

Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hastings, Chip Hayes, or John

Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202) 482-4366, 482-5047, or 482-0649.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 12, 1987, the Department published in the Federal

Register (52 FR 1217) the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and

strip from Canada. Based on timely requests for review, on March 8,

1993, in accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated an

administrative review of Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (Wolverine), for

the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992 (58 FR 12931). 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. 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. 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

brass sheet and strip of solid rectangular cross section over 0.006

inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in

finished thicknesses or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-

reels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included.

During the review period such merchandise was 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 purposes, the written description of the scope of this order

remains dispositive. This review covers one Canadian manufacturer/

exporter, Wolverine, and the period January 1, 1992 through December

31, 1992.

USP

We based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772 of

the Tariff Act. We calculated purchase price based on delivered, duty-

paid prices. In accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Tariff Act, we

made deductions for movement expenses and customs duty. Movement

expenses included fees for brokerage and handling, and U.S. and foreign

inland freight.

When comparisons were made to home market sales, we adjusted USP

for taxes in accordance with our practice as outlined in

Silicomanganese from Venezuela, Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value, 59 FR 31204, June 17, 1994 (Silicomanganese).

No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

FMV

The Department used home market price to calculate FMV, as defined

in section 773 of the Tariff Act. Because the home market was viable,

we compared U.S. sales with sales of such merchandise in the home

market.

FMV was based on packed, delivered prices to unrelated home market

purchasers. We made adjustments, where applicable, for home market

credit, post-sale inland freight, U.S. credit costs, GST, and U.S.

packing costs.

We calculated FMV using monthly weighted-average prices of brass

sheet and strip having the same characteristics as to alloy, product

code, width group, and gauge group (as was done in earlier

proceedings).

We also adjusted the amount of the home market GST included in FMV

in accordance with our methodology in Silicomanganese.

No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.

Cost Test

Since the information supporting petitioners' allegation provided

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect home market sales below cost,

we investigated whether Wolverine sold such 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.

We requested COP information on an alloy-specific basis because we

have determined that alloy is a primary component and a major

differentiating factor of brass sheet and strip products. The Court of

International Trade (CIT) upheld the Department's use of alloy-specific

information in Hussey Copper, Ltd., et al. v. United States, Slip Op.

94-81 (May 16, 1994). In response to our request, Wolverine reported

COP as the sum of costs for materials, labor, factory overhead,

selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and packing for

each product code. Wolverine's product code, however, is a general

categorization which does not distinguish between various alloys,

gauges, and widths. Moreover, Wolverine did not suggest any allocation

methodology that would result in alloy-specific data for the

fabrication and packing costs for the class or kind of subject

merchandise. As a result, we used, as partial best information

available, in accordance with section 776(c) of the Tariff Act, the

fabrication and packing cost portions of petitioners' data which were

submitted in the sales-below-cost allegation. Since metal costs were

maintained on an alloy-specific basis, we did use respondent's

submitted metal prices from its daily metal price list for this element

and its company data to compute SG&A expenses. [[Page 20671]]

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. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered

Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of

Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review (56 FR

31693, July 11, 1991).

Wolverine has not submitted information indicating that any of its

sales below cost were made at prices which would have permitted

``recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the

normal course of trade,'' as required by section 773(b)(2) of the

Tariff Act. Therefore, we have no basis for concluding that the costs

of production of such sales have been recovered within a reasonable

period of time. As a result of our investigation, we disregarded

Wolverine's below-cost sales made over an extended period of time.

In accordance with section 773(a)(2), we used constructed value

(CV) as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there were insufficient

sales of the comparison home market model at or above the COP. We

calculated CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Tariff Act. CV

includes the cost of materials and fabrication for the exported

merchandise, plus SG&A expenses, profit, and packing. Because the

respondent did not provide alloy-specific information on, nor any

allocation of, fabrication and packing costs, we used the data supplied

by petitioners for these cost factors in their submission of August 29,

1993. In our calculation of the SG&A expenses, we computed the actual

percentage of costs using figures supplied by the respondent in its COP

response. We multiplied that actual figure by the cost of manufacturing

(COM). The COM is the sum of the cost of materials, which was supplied

by the respondent, and the fabrication costs, which were supplied by

the petitioners. We used the computed SG&A expenses since they were

greater than the statutory minimum of 10 percent. Because the

respondent's reported profit was less than eight percent of the COM

plus general expenses, for profit we used the statutory minimum of

eight percent.

For those models that had sufficient above-cost sales, we

calculated FMV using home market prices to unrelated purchasers as

described above.

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 January 1,

1992 through December 31, 1992:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Wolverine................................................... 24.52

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

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 a 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 Tarriff 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 in 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 8.10 percent, the all others rate

established in the LTFV investigation (51 FR 44319).

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: April 19, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-10413 Filed 4-26-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M