Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-602]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination Not To Revoke in Part.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip (BSS) from Germany, and

its intent to revoke in part (61 FR 20214). The review covers exports

of this merchandise to the United States by one manufacturer/exporter,

Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland), during the period March 1, 1994 through

February 28, 1995.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

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

adjusted our calculations of Wieland's margin for these final results.

The review indicates the existence of no dumping margins for this

period. We have also determined not to revoke the antidumping duty

order in part.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration,

International

[[Page 49728]]

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

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)

482-2704 or 482-0649, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are

references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the

current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in

the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).

Background

On May 6, 1996, the Department (the Department) published in the

Federal Register the preliminary results of its administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on BSS from Germany, and its intent to

revoke in part (61 FR 20214). The antidumping duty order on BSS from

Germany was published March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6997).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of BSS, other than

leaded and tinned BSS. 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. This review does

not cover products the chemical compositions of which are defined by

other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. In physical dimensions, the products

covered by this review have a solid rectangular cross section over

0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter) through 0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in

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

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

merchandise is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although the HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written

description of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is March 1, 1994 through February 28,

1995. The review involves one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland.

Analysis of Comments Received

We received a case brief from 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. We received a rebuttal brief from Wieland. At

the request of the petitioners, we held a hearing on June 19, 1996.

Comment 1: The petitioners argue that ``the Department must require

Wieland to submit complete home market sales data and other relevant

information in order to be able to conduct a thorough level of trade

analysis''. Citing 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677b(a)(1)(B)(i), and the

Department's October 23, 1995, supplemental questionnaire in Certain

Pasta from Italy and Turkey, petitioners claim that ``the Department

now affirmatively collects narrative information and sales data from a

respondent, then analyzes the information to establish whether

different levels of trade do or do not exist.'' The petitioners argue

further that ``a respondent is responsible for reporting complete sales

that include all of its sales of subject merchandise in both the home

market and the comparison market during the period of review,'' adding

that our questionnaire required just such information (emphasis in the

original).

The petitioners claim that by excluding sales by two affiliates,

Wieland unilaterally decided not to report all of its home market sales

of the subject merchandise in both its original and supplemental

questionnaire responses. The petitioners characterize Wieland's

election not to report complete home market sales data as a refusal to

comply with the Department's questionnaires.

The petitioners take issue also with the Department's actions at

verification; in particular, our review of sales by Wieland's

affiliates Roessler GmbH (Roessler) and Schwarzwalder Metallhandel GmbH

(SMH). The petitioners claim that the Department undertook this

verification step as an alternative to requiring Wieland to report

complete home market sales data. The petitioners assert that in

examining these affiliate sales at verification, the Department was

improperly gathering new information, rather than merely verifying the

accuracy of questionnaire responses already submitted. The petitioners

argue that such a procedure is contrary to statutory intent and bars

other parties from participating meaningfully in the administrative

process.

Wieland argues that the information on the record establishes that

the Department made the appropriate comparisons at the correct level of

trade (LOT), and that no further sales information is necessary.

Wieland points out that it reported home market sales of the most

similar merchandise at the same LOT, and that no sales by SMH and

Roessler are of merchandise as physically similar to the U.S.

merchandise as those which it reported.

Wieland further argues that, in the absence of a challenge to the

Department's model-matching methodology, the petitioners'' LOT argument

is moot, and states that there is no valid reason to collect additional

sales data from SMH and Roessler because none of their sales would be

used in a fair value comparison. The respondent also points to record

evidence from the verification confirming that sales by SMH and

Roessler were sold at a different LOT from Wieland's U.S. sales.

Department's Position: We disagree with the petitioners. From the

record evidence we were able to determine that the sales in question

were of physically less similar merchandise than the reported home

market sales. As a result, we determined that the information which the

petitioners would have us collect was not needed for our analysis. We

further determined that to require a full reporting of these data would

have occasioned an unwarranted delay in the conduct of the review.

Furthermore, sheet sales by SMH and Roessler were downstream sales

which did not represent a significant portion of home market sales.

Accordingly, we determined that the respondent need not report these

home market downstream sales. See Certain Corrosion Resistant Carbon

Steel Flat Products from Korea, (60 FR 44008, 44009, August 24, 1995,

and 61 FR 18547, April 26, 1996), and Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products from Korea (60 FR 65284, 65286, December 19, 1995).

We note that contrary to the petitioners' assertion, Wieland did

not unilaterally limit its response; in its February 14, 1996, letter

Wieland requested that it be allowed to exclude sales by SMH and

Roessler, explaining, among other points, that these sales were of

merchandise less physically similar to the U.S. merchandise than the

sales which Wieland reported, and that in volume they represented an

insignificant portion of home market sales.

[[Page 49729]]

We included in our verification outline specific instructions to

make available the data on sales of subject merchandise by SMH and

Roessler. We verified that all such sales were of merchandise which was

physically less similar to the U.S. merchandise than the reported

sales, and that their combined volume was a very small percentage (less

than one percent) of home market sales of sheet. We further verified

that the home market sales by Roessler and SMH were at a different LOT.

We did not gather new information, as the petitioners allege, or

conduct any form of analysis, but conducted a standard verification of

the response in accordance with law.

Because we determined that the merchandise sold by SMH and Roessler

was physically less similar to the U.S. merchandise than the reported

home market sales, we determined that we would not use this information

for comparison purposes and that it was not necessary to require

Wieland to report it.

We note that our decision to allow the exclusion of sales

information for SMH and Roessler was not predicated on the reasons

cited, for example, in Wieland's June 12, 1996, rebuttal brief and in

its February 5, 1996 letter responding to the petitioners' February 2,

1996 deficiency comments. We do not agree with Wieland's assertion that

language in 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677(16) (A) and (B) and in the glossary of

the Department's questionnaire authorized Wieland to selectively report

only identical or most similar merchandise. Respondents must report all

sales of identical and similar merchandise, and it is the Department's,

not the respondent's, responsibility to determine whether certain sales

need to be reported or not.

Comment 2: Concerning revocation, 19 CFR Sec. 353.25(a)(2) states

that the Secretary may revoke an order in part if the Secretary

concludes that

(i) One or more producers or resellers covered by the order have

sold the merchandise at not less then foreign market value for a period

of at least three consecutive years;

(ii) It is not likely that those persons will in the future sell

the merchandise at less than foreign market value; and

(iii) For producers or resellers that the Secretary previously has

determined to have sold the merchandise at less than foreign market

value, the producers or resellers agree in writing to their immediate

reinstatement in the order, if the Secretary concludes under

Sec. 353.22(f) that the producer or reseller, subsequent to the

revocation, sold the merchandise at less than foreign market value.

The petitioners challenged Wieland's claim to have met the first

criteria, three years of shipments with no margins, arguing that the

low volume of Wieland's shipments in the eighth POR ``is tantamount to

no volume at all,'' and thus does not fulfill the requirement for

shipments with no dumping margin. The petitioners also note that the

Department's discussion of revocation criteria in the proposed

regulations (61 FR 7308, February 27, 1996) contains references to

``commercially significant quantities.'' The petitioners caution that

reliance upon small volumes can enable a respondent to ``control a

handful of transactions in its home market and the United States so as

to convey the misleading impression of no dumping.'' The petitioners

urge a comparison of the eighth review volume with the volume in prior

years.

Wieland maintains that it has satisfied every statutory and

regulatory requirement necessary to obtain revocation of the order.

Citing PQ Corp. v. United States, 652 F. Supp. 724 (CIT 1987) (PQ

Corp.) and Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings)

from Italy, (60 FR 10959, 10966-67, February 28, 1995) (AFBs/Italy),

Wieland argues that even a single sale is sufficient and that no

minimum quantity is required.

Wieland argues that the petitioners'' efforts to rely on language

in the Department's proposed regulations are premature.

Wieland further argues that its U.S. sales were of quantities

consistent with the quantities of Wieland's other sales and were, in

fact, greater in quantity than most of its home market sales. Wieland

states that nothing in the statute or even the proposed regulations

supports the petitioners'' suggestion that the eighth POR sales were

not of a commercially significant volume. Wieland argues as well that

it would be inappropriate to compare the eighth POR U.S. sales volume

to total home market and third country sales in earlier periods.

Department's Position: We agree with Wieland that it made sales in

the eighth period and we disagree with the petitioners'' equation of a

decreased sales volume with no volume at all. We examined the U.S. and

the home market sales and did not find evidence that either were not

bona fide transactions.

PQ Corp. did not involve revocation and does not limit the

Department's discretion in making determinations as to likelihood of

resumption of sales at LTFV.

We agree with Wieland that the proposed regulations cited by the

petitioners are not applicable because they are not final.

Comment 3: The petitioners argue that administrative and judicial

precedents make clear that the burden is on the respondent to

demonstrate that there is no likelihood of a resumption of sales at

less than fair value (LTFV). The petitioners note that in Television

Receivers from Japan (55 FR 11420, 11422, March 28, 1990) (TVs/Japan)

the Department concluded that Toshiba had not presented ``sufficient

additional information to support its contention that LTFV sales would

not resume if the finding were to be revoked.'' The petitioners further

note that in upholding this determination, in Toshiba Corp. v. United

States, 15 CIT 597, 599 (1991) (Toshiba), the Court of International

Trade (the Court) confirmed that it was for Toshiba, having requested

the review, to come forward with ``real evidence'' to persuade Commerce

to revoke the finding.

Similarly, the petitioners argue, the Court, in Sanyo Electric Co.,

Ltd. et al. v. United States, 15 CIT 597, 603 (1991) (Sanyo), stated

that the investigation was conducted at Sanyo's request and it was for

Sanyo to come forward with real evidence to persuade Commerce to revoke

the finding. The petitioners also cite Matsushita Electric Industrial

Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927, 937 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Matsushita),

where the appellate court similarly held that it was for respondents to

come forward with real evidence justifying revocation of a

countervailing duty order.

The petitioners note that in Toshiba, Sanyo, and Frozen

Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil (56 FR 52511, October 21, 1991)

(FCOJB), the respondents did offer some evidence that they hoped would

persuade the Department that there was no likelihood of a resumption of

sales at LTFV and that, by contrast, Wieland has submitted no such

evidence, notwithstanding that Wieland itself should be in the best

position to identify and provide any such information. Rather, the

petitioners note, Wieland has suggested that by making sales for three

years with no dumping margins and providing the required

certifications, it has satisfied all the requirements for revocation.

The petitioners also argue that the dramatic reduction in volume

and the change in the product mix of Wieland's U.S. sales are evidence

that Wieland would be likely to resume sales at LTFV if the antidumping

duty order were revoked for Wieland. In particular, the petitioners

highlight the elimination of Wieland's U.S. sales of strip in the

eighth review period and argue that

[[Page 49730]]

strip, which Wieland had previously sold in the U.S. market, is

typically a more important product in the BSS market (June 19, 1996

hearing transcript at 33-34).

Finally, the petitioners argue that the Department must verify any

evidence or proof relied upon to determine whether a resumption of

sales at LTFV is likely, and note that this was not done in the

Department's verification of Wieland's sales data.

Wieland argues that there is no likelihood of the resumption of

dumping and that the petitioners have failed to provide any evidence to

the contrary. Wieland notes that the three-year period of the sixth

through eighth reviews was marked by changing exchange rates and

competitive market conditions, and argues that the absence of dumping

margins in this environment proves that Wieland is able to adapt to

changing market conditions and economic conditions and to price its

sales above foreign market value. Wieland cites the Department's

partial revocation in Color Television Receivers, Except for Video

Monitors, from Taiwan; Final Results (55 FR 47093, 47097, November 9,

1990) (TVs/Taiwan) and the upholding of this revocation in Tatung

Company v. United States, 1994 WL 704952, 704956 (CIT) (Tatung), where

the Court ruled that ``ordinarily past behavior would constitute

substantial evidence of expected future behavior.''

Wieland claims that its ``absence of dumping over the last three

review periods is in and of itself substantial and dispositive evidence

that there is no likelihood of the resumption of dumped sales.''

Wieland notes that the Court in Tatung and the Department in FCOJB

rejected mere speculation by petitioners that dumping could resume.

Wieland maintains that in every case of which it is aware under the

1989 and subsequent regulations, the Department rejected speculation

about likelihood and relied on the respondent's past pricing behavior.

Wieland argues that the final results and related court decisions

involving televisions from Japan, which the petitioners cite, are

distinguished from the present case by the fact that in those cases the

absence of shipments by the respondents deprived the Department of

evidence as to likelihood of resumption of sales at LTFV.

Wieland argues that the Department has repeatedly analyzed and

relied on past sales behavior as the best evidence of future behavior.

Wieland cites TVs/Taiwan, where the Department rejected a petitioner's

speculation that deteriorating exchange rates alone would make sales at

LTFV likely, and chose instead to rely on the respondent's ``proven

track record of no dumping during an appreciating Taiwanese dollar.''

Similarly, Wieland argues, in FCOJB the petitioners'' arguments

concerning market factors, which included fluctuating and falling world

prices for orange juice and increases in foreign capacity, failed to

persuade the Department of a likelihood of resumption of dumping, in

the face of no dumping by the respondent over the three previous years.

Concerning the decrease in its shipments and their changed

character, Wieland acknowledges that ``one way of adapting to an order

is to move into higher value-added products * * *'' and further

explains that ``Wieland has complied with the order by eliminating

sales of product which it could not sell at fair value, and pricing all

other products above fair value'' (rebuttal brief, pp. 24-25). Wieland

also attributes its decrease in U.S. shipments to its approximately 23

percent antidumping cash deposit rate.

Regarding the decrease in shipments of brass sheet and strip from

Germany in general, which the petitioners cite as evidence of Wieland's

being likely to resume sales at LTFV if the order were revoked, Wieland

notes that the category in question encompasses non-subject

merchandise, and that, in any case, it is normal for an appreciating

home market currency to cause decreases in exports. Wieland further

notes that it exported subject merchandise to the United States without

dumping, despite the appreciation of its home market currency.

Wieland maintains that the petitioners'' arguments on likelihood

are attempts to confuse the issue. Wieland argues that these factors

merely prove that in the face of various changes in market and

competitive conditions, ``Wieland has maintained the necessary price

discipline to eliminate sales at less than fair value.''

Wieland further argues that it has met the final requirement for

revocation by agreeing to the immediate reinstatement of the

antidumping duty order if the Department subsequently finds that

Wieland has resumed dumping.

Department's Position: In addition to the absence of sales at LTFV

for three consecutive years, the Department must also be satisfied that

there is no likelihood of resumption of dumping of the subject product

before revoking an order in whole or in part (19 CFR

Sec. 353.25(a)(2)(ii)).

In this case, as discussed below, Wieland has shipped progressively

less BSS to the United States since the imposition of the order, until

in the most recent period it made but one sale, and that of sheet

rather than the lower-cost strip. But Wieland has built a plant in the

United States that uses strip as a feed product. We expect that if

there were no order in place Wieland would naturally prefer to use its

own strip from Germany to supply its U.S. plant, rather than buy from a

competitor. In view of this prospect and Wieland's apparent difficulty

in selling strip at fair value in the United States, we believe it

difficult to hold that Wieland will be able to ship BSS, particularly

strip, to the United States at prices at or above fair value. We

therefore cannot conclude that there is no likelihood of a resumption

of sales at LTFV.

We discuss the reasons mentioned in the above summary, as well as

additional considerations and the parties' arguments, in greater detail

below.

In prior cases where revocation was under consideration and the

likelihood of resumption of dumped sales was at issue, the Department

has considered, in addition to the respondent's prices and margins in

the preceding periods, such other factors as conditions and trends in

the domestic and home market industries, currency movements, and the

ability of the foreign entity to compete in the U.S. marketplace

without LTFV sales. See, e.g., FCOJB, Titanium Sponge From Japan, (53

FR 21099, July 1988) (Titanium) and TVs/Japan. Based on our analysis of

such market and industry factors, as well as the facts specific to this

case, we cannot conclude that there is no likelihood of a resumption of

dumping.

Competitive conditions for copper and brass mill products are

characterized by oversupply. According to a trade journal, the market

for copper and copper-alloy semi-finished products, a category which

includes brass sheet and strip,

* * * looks to be in decline this year * * * The drop in demand is

endemic throughout Europe, with France and Germany looking

particularly depressed at the moment, and producers are generally

pessimistic about the market in 1996. Increased levels of stocks

from the end of 1995 are also aggravating this lower demand.''

(Metal Bulletin, N. 8054, February 15, 1996, p. 13).

This decrease in demand in the European market comes only two years

after a ``glut in the global marketplace'' resulted in a downward trend

in product prices, in the North American market as well as elsewhere

(Purchasing, March 3, 1994 v. 116, n. 3, p. 69).

[[Page 49731]]

At the same time, the U.S. market continues to remain desirable for

foreign exporters, and Wieland in particular, as explained below, by

virtue of its large size relative to other markets (Metal Statistics,

Chilton Publications, New York, N.Y., 1996, p. 169). Germany has

historically been the largest source of BSS imports into the U.S.

market and is the largest producer of semi-finished copper and copper-

alloy products, including BSS, in the world (American Metal Market,

February 16, 1995; also, Metal Statistics, pp. 16, 169).

German shipments to the United States of those categories of brass

products which include covered merchandise show dramatic, sustained

declines following the antidumping duty order. See IM145 Data Bank U.S.

General Imports and Imports for Consumption, December 1992-1995,

Foreign Trade Division of the Bureau of the Census, (IM145 Data); see

also 1985 U.S. Foreign Trade Highlights, U.S. Department of Commerce,

International Trade Administration, 1986 (1985 Foreign Trade).

Wieland's own shipments of covered merchandise have declined even

more sharply. (See August 29, 1996 Analysis Memorandum for Final

Results (Analysis Memorandum).) In fact, Wieland's shipments during the

last three administrative review periods have declined each year,

culminating in Wieland's single U.S. shipment in the eighth POR of less

than 70,000 pounds of subject merchandise, less than one-thousandth of

the volume before the order went into effect (See Analysis Memorandum.)

Furthermore, Wieland's last shipment was of relatively high-valued

sheet, whereas in previous periods Wieland also sold lower-valued

strip, which accounts for a much larger share of the market than sheet.

The sharp decrease in volume and the change in the makeup of Wieland's

U.S. sales both suggest that Wieland has difficulty selling strip

covered by the order above fair value.

Wieland is the largest BSS producer in Germany and also maintains

substantial commercial and re-rolling operations in the United States.

Wieland's U.S. plant, which does not cast brass, is a processor of

subject merchandise, including lower-valued strip, which Wieland has

sold in the past. Strip is a more important part of the BSS market than

sheet (hearing transcript at 34) and, as a lower-valued commodity, is

more likely than sheet to be sold at LTFV (rebuttal brief at 24).

Wieland recently acknowledged that it faced continuing pressure from

imports in the home market as a result of the strength of the Deutsche

mark, and expressed scepticism about future capacity utilization,

because its level of new orders had been unsatisfactory (Boerson

Zeitung, March 5, 1996, Handelsblatt, March 7, 1996). With capacity

utilization in the home market under threat, and a re-rolling facility

in the United States which both processes and re-sells subject

merchandise, including lower-valued strip, Wieland would have

incentives to resume sales in the United States of strip, a product

which it was unable to sell at fair value in the most recent period, as

shown by the company's recent U.S. shipments data and as confirmed by

Wieland's own statements (rebuttal brief, pp. 24-25).

Concerning Wieland's argument that high antidumping duties

prevented it from selling strip at fair value, there is no evidence on

the record of a significant increase in Wieland's U.S. sales of strip

since the 0% antidumping duty cash deposit rate went into effect in

July 1995.

In addition to the above considerations, the continued

strengthening of the Deutsche mark provides a further impetus for

Wieland to resume sales at LTFV in the absence of an order. In previous

cases the Department has recognized exchange-rate relationships as

significant elements in its determinations about the likelihood of

resumption of sales at LTFV. See Titanium, Tatung, and TVS/Japan. In

this case we note that the strengthening of the Deutsche mark vis-a-vis

the U.S. dollar continues to date; this tends to offset the benefits to

Wieland resulting from the removal of the previous cash deposit rate

following the seventh review. Wieland acknowledges that the

strengthening Deutsche mark did require it to adjust its prices to

ensure fair value sales (rebuttal brief, p. 24). Public data on brass

shipments from Germany, as well as case-specific facts, such as

Wieland's history of declining U.S. imports and the changing

composition of its U.S. sales, support the view that continued

strengthening of Wieland's home market currency increases the

likelihood that its future sales would be made at LTFV, because the

strengthening home market currency will tend to make home market prices

higher relative to U.S. prices.

Wieland thus has several incentives to resume shipments of covered

merchandise, including lower-valued strip, both to supply its U.S. re-

rolling facility directly and to maximize capacity utilization at home,

and would be doing so against a backdrop of an ever-strengthening home

market currency, in a mature industry historically known for its price

competitiveness. It is therefore reasonable to expect that Wieland

would supply its U.S. plant with its own strip and that this strip

would be likely to be sold at LTFV. For these reasons, we cannot

conclude that there is no likelihood of sales at LTFV.

We disagree with Wieland that the Department's approaches to the

revocation issue in TVs/Japan and FCOJB, and the court decisions in

Toshiba, Matsushita, and Sanyo are irrelevant merely because the

criteria for revocation changed subsequently or because the cases

involved no shipments. The principle remains unchanged that the

Department must be satisfied that there is no likelihood of resumption

of dumping, and this determination is still not solely dependent on

three years of no margins. If, as Wieland suggests, three years of no

margins were sufficient evidence on the likelihood of resumption of

dumping, then the second regulatory criterion would be superfluous. We

agree with the petitioners that our practice and the court decisions

cited above confirm that the second regulatory criterion, that there be

no likelihood of resumption of dumped sales, is separate and distinct

from the first criterion.

Furthermore, the facts in TVs/Taiwan, FCOJB, and AFBs/Italy, where

we did revoke orders in whole or in part, differ in several respects

from the facts in this case.

In TVs/Taiwan the respondent, unlike Wieland, had never been found

to have sold at LTFV either before or since the order was issued (TVs/

Taiwan, 47097, Comment 16). Also unlike Wieland, which sold a single

model in a single transaction in the eighth POR, in TVs/Taiwan the

respondent had sold a multitude of different models in substantial

quantities in the United States (see Response of Tatung Company to the

Antidumping Questionnaire Involving Color Television Receivers from

Taiwan, November 15, 1985, public version, and Memorandum from Analyst

to File, Tatung Preliminary Analysis, public version, April 7, 1987, p.

1). Finally, TVs/Taiwan was different from this case because, other

than the petitioner's one argument on currencies, there was no

additional evidence indicating the likelihood of a resumption of

dumping.

Similarly, there was little evidence bearing on the likelihood

issue in AFBs/Italy. In that case the petitioners claimed the

respondent's U.S. sales were ``minuscule''; they were, in fact, greater

than the quantities relied upon in the Department's initial LTFV

determination. This fact alone distinguishes AFBs/Italy from the

[[Page 49732]]

present case, where there is a contrary trend. Finally, unlike this

case, where the petitioners have made several arguments concerning the

likelihood of resumption of dumping, in AFBs/Italy the petitioner's

only other argument on likelihood was the fact that SKF-Italy was part

of a multinational corporation.

In FCOJB, the Department examined the evolution of product prices,

current and projected production trends, potential increases in demand

by third country markets, and present U.S. market conditions, but

determined that each of these factors either represented evidence

against the likelihood of a resumption of dumping, or did not correlate

with a trend of dumping by Brazilian producers. These facts

differentiate FCOJB from the present case. As discussed above, market

and currency pressures have made it harder, and are continuing to make

it harder, for Wieland to sell at or above fair value.

Wieland is correct that it and the respondent in TVs/Taiwan sold

merchandise in the United States at fair value despite a strengthening

home market currency; but, again, other facts in that case, as

described above, provided more convincing evidence of no likelihood of

resumption of dumping. Wieland does concede that the strengthening of

the Deutsche mark, which continues to date, has affected its ability to

sell at fair value (rebuttal brief, p. 24).

Thus, the determinations to revoke in TVs/Taiwan and AFBs/Italy

were reached in light of different factors, and there was less evidence

of likelihood of resumption of LTFV sales. TVs/Taiwan, Tatung and AFBs/

Italy do not stand for a reliance on three years of no dumping as

conclusive evidence of no likelihood of a resumption of dumping.

Accordingly, we disagree with Wieland's suggestion that these cases

show that the Department should rely solely on Wieland's history of

three years with no margins as a sufficient indicator of its future

behavior.

To recapitulate, the available evidence concerning market and

economic factors does not support a conclusion that there is no

likelihood of Wieland's resuming sales at LTFV. Indeed, multiple

factors argue against such a conclusion: the drop in demand for these

products in Europe, especially in Germany, which gives Wieland an

incentive to export these products in order to prevent a diminishing

capacity utilization rate; Wieland's severe decreases in shipments of

BSS to the United States since the imposition of the order, and its

recent complete withdrawal from the strip segment of the market;

Wieland's ownership in the United States of a re-rolling facility,

built since the order, which requires subject merchandise as feedstock,

notably for lower-valued strip; and the difficulties of competing for

sales of strip in light of a strengthened Deutsche mark, both in the

home market and the U.S. market, all argue against a conclusion that

there is no likelihood of a resumption of LTFV sales by Wieland.

Having considered the industry conditions and the case facts, the

Department is not satisfied that there is no likelihood of a resumption

of dumping of covered merchandise by Wieland; therefore, we are not

granting revocation in part.

Comment 4: The petitioners argue that the Department failed to take

into account the revisions made by Wieland with respect to its home

market packing expenses in its January 11, 1996, submission. The

respondent did not contest this point.

Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners and have

amended our analysis to reflect the revised expense amount for these

final results.

Final Results of Review

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

that the following margin exists for Wieland:

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

Percent

Manufacturer/exporter Period margin

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

Wieland-Werke AG......................... 3/1/94-2/28/95 0

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

Individual differences between the US price and normal value may

vary from the above percentage. The Department shall instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these

final results, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

(1) Because the rate for Wieland is zero, the Department shall not

require cash deposits on shipments from Wieland;

(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 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 8.87 percent, the ``all others'' rate established

in the LTFV investigation.

This notice also serves as a final 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 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 (APOs) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion

to judicial protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a

violation which is subject to sanction. This administrative review and

this notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR Sec. 353.22.

Dated: September 17, 1996.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 96-24352 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P