Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-602]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Amendment of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment of final results of antidumping duty

administrative reviews.

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

SUMMARY: On July 27, 1995 the Department published the final results of

administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and

strip from Germany. Clerical errors which were timely filed by the

petitioners were not corrected by the Department prior to the time the

petitioners filed suit with the Court of International Trade (CIT).

Therefore, the Department requested leave to correct the clerical

errors in this case. Pursuant to orders issued by the CIT on February

29, 1996, granting leave to the Department to correct these ministerial

errors, we have corrected several ministerial errors with respect to

sales of subject merchandise by one German manufacturer/exporter. The

errors were present in our final results of reviews.

The reviews cover the following three periods:

--March 1, 1990, through February 28, 1991;

--March 1, 1991, through February 29, 1992;

--March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.

We are publishing this amendment to the final results of reviews in

accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.28(c).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,

Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final

results of antidumping administrative reviews on July 27, 1995 (60 FR

38542). The reviews covered one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland Werke AG

(Wieland), and the periods March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991

(fourth review),

[[Page 18721]]

March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992 (fifth review), and March 1,

1992 through February 28, 1993 (sixth review).

For a detailed description of the products covered by this order,

see the final results of review referenced above.

On August 7, 1995, the petitioners, Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller

Company, 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, alleged that in calculating the final

antidumping duty margins the Department committed the ministerial

errors described below. The Department found the allegations

constituted ministerial errors (see memo from the case analyst to Wendy

Frankel dated February 9, 1996). However, because the petitioners filed

suit with the CIT before we could correct this error, we were unable to

make the corrections and publish the amended final results of reviews.

Subsequently, the CIT granted the Department leave to correct these

ministerial errors.

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.

Ministerial Errors in Final Results of Review

1990-1991 Administrative Review

Comment 1: The petitioners allege that in the final results the

Department incorrectly inserted a line of programming which adjusted

Wieland's credit expenses based on the ratio between Wieland's U.S.

deposit rate and Wieland's German short-term borrowing rate, whereas in

our notice of final results we stated that we used the U.S. prime rate

to calculate Wieland's imputed U.S. credit expenses for this period.

Department's Position: We have reviewed the questionnaire

responses, case briefs, and computer programs, and we agree that

including the line of programming in question was a clerical error.

Accordingly, we have removed the incorrect line of programming for

these amended final results.

Comment 2: The petitioners allege that in the cost test, the

Department failed to subtract after-sale rebates and home market

freight charges from home market prices, and failed to add home market

packing expenses to cost of production.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that it was a

ministerial error to fail to deduct after-sale rebates and foreign

inland freight expenses from price, and to fail to add packing expenses

to costs, for the cost test. We have changed these portions of our

analysis accordingly for these amended final results.

1991-1992 Administrative Review

Comment 3: The petitioners allege that the Department miscalculated

the metal value for sales of alloy CDA250 by referring to the average

value of two other alloys, one of which was CDA 260/M32; the

petitioners argue that this last should have been CDA 260/M30.

Department's Position: We have reviewed the computer programs and

we agree with the petitioners. We have corrected our analysis

accordingly for these amended final results.

Comment 4: The petitioners allege that the Department did not use

home market sales of alloy CDA 250 for comparison to U.S. sales in its

computer program, despite our statement in the final results of review

that we had used them.

Department's Position: We have reviewed the computer programs and

we agree with the petitioners. Accordingly, we have corrected our

analysis to include the appropriate computer language to allow for

comparison of U.S. sales to home market sales of alloy CDA 250, where

appropriate.

1991-1992 and 1992-1993 Administrative Reviews

Comment 5: The petitioners allege that in both reviews the

Department incorrectly entered plus signs where minus signs should

appear in the value-added tax adjustments for early payment discounts.

Department's Position: We have reviewed the computer programs, we

agree with the petitioners, and we have corrected our analyses

accordingly for these amended final results.

Amended Final Results of Reviews

After correcting the final results for these ministerial errors,

the Department has determined that the following margins exist for the

fourth, fifth, and sixth review periods:

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

Percent

Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin

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

Wieland-Werke AG.............................. 3/1/90-2/28/91 2.57

3/1/91-2/29/92 2.37

3/1/92-2/28/93 0.46

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

Individual differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the

above percentages.

This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate regarding

the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the

relevant entries during the review periods. 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.

These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with

section 751(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673(d)) and section

353.28(c) of the Department's regulations.

Dated: April 23, 1996.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-10554 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P