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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[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 April 27, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada. The review

period is January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992. The review covers

one manufacturer/exporter.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we

have changed our results from those presented in our preliminary

results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sally Hastings or John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import

[[Page 49583]]

Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20230; telephone: (202) 482-4366 or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 27, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register

(60 FR 20670) the preliminary results of its administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada (52 FR

1217, January 12, 1987).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department has now completed this administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the

Tariff Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute

and to the Department's regulations refer to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

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 dispositve.

This review covers one Canadian manufacturer/exporter, Wolverine

Tube (Canada) Inc. (Wolverine), and the period January 1, 1992 through

December 31, 1992.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. The petitioners in this case are Outokumpu

American Brass, Hussey Copper Ltd., The Miller Company, Olin

Corporation-Brass Group, 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). Petitioners timely submitted a case brief. Respondent

Wolverine did not file a case brief and none of the interested parties

submitted a rebuttal brief.

Comment 1: Petitioners agree with the Department's use of their

submitted fabrication and packing cost information as best information

available in calculating Wolverine's cost of production (COP) and

constructed value (CV). However, petitioners argue that the Department

should adjust the daily metal prices submitted by Wolverine to include

yield losses, transportation costs, and Wolverine's use of virgin

metals and scrap.

Department's Position: We agree in principle with the petitioners'

comment. However, since petitioners used Wolverine's unadjusted metal

prices in their August 27, 1993 allegation of sales below cost and

because neither petitioners nor respondent provided information

concerning yield losses, transportation costs, or Wolverine's use of

virgin metals and scrap in their sales-below-cost allegation, we have

no information which would enable us to quantify these items.

Therefore, we have continued to use the respondent's submitted metal

prices, unadjusted for yield losses, transportation costs, and

utilization of virgin metals and scrap, as cost of materials.

Comment 2: Petitioners state that there is no indication that

Wolverine's submitted metal prices include the reported Goods &

Services Tax (GST) of seven percent. Petitioners argue that the

Department incorrectly compared GST-exclusive COPs to GST-inclusive

home market prices, thus understating the number of home market sales

below the cost of production.

Department's Position: We disagree. Line 109 of the computer

program defines net price, which we used only for price-to-price

comparisons, not the sales-below-cost test. In line 133 of the computer

program we compared a GST-exclusive unit price to a GST-exclusive COP.

Comment 3: Petitioners contend that because the Department used in

its COP analysis U.S. fabrication costs submitted by the petitioners as

best information available, we should have adjusted these costs for the

differences between U.S. and Canadian labor costs.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. In these

final results, we have accounted for such differences by using Canadian

labor costs based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Hourly

Compensation Costs for Nonferrous Metal Manufacturing in Canada in

1992, rather than the 1991 figures submitted by the petitioners in

their August 27, 1993 sales-below-cost allegation.

Comment 4: Petitioners argue that the Department should adjust

Wolverine's general and administrative (G&A) expenses to include costs

associated with Wolverine's closure of its New Westminster facility and

Wolverine's amortization costs.

Department's Position: It is the Department practice to include in

G&A those expenses relating to factory closure, even if the factory

does not produce subject merchandise, because those expenses are a

general cost of doing business. (See Silicon Metal From Argentina:

Final Results of Administrative Review, 58 FR 65336 (December 14, 1993)

and Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-made Fiber From Taiwan:

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 55 FR 34585

(August 23, 1990)). In its Supplemental Cost Response, submitted on

April 28, 1994, Wolverine stated that it did not include the New

Westminster expenses in its allocation of G&A in the previously

submitted cost data. Therefore, we have allocated a portion of the New

Westminster factory closure expenses to Wolverine's Fergus, Ontario,

Canada facility (which is the sole Wolverine factory that produces

brass sheet and strip), and have added that portion to our calculation

of G&A.

With regard to Wolverine's amortization expense, we saw no evidence

and the petitioner has provided no basis or grounds to believe that the

G&A expense reported for the Fergus facility does not include a portion

of Wolverine's corporate amortization expense. For this reason, we have

not altered the G&A expense, other than for the closure expenses

discussed above.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine

that the following margin exists for the period January 1, 1992 through

December 31, 1992:

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

Percent

Manufacturer/exporter margin

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

Wolverine.................................................... 25.49

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

[[Page 49584]]

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between United States price (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

upon publication of these final results of review for all shipment of

Canadian brass sheet and strip entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the

reviewed company will be the rate listed above; (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 previous 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 conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will be 8.10 percent, the ``all

others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These cash 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 the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

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.

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: September 13, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-23794 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M