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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-601]

Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; Termination of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of termination of antidumping duty administrative

review.

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

SUMMARY: On October 29, 1997, the Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register a notice of termination of the administrative

review of brass sheet and strip from Canada covering imports of subject

merchandise for the period January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993.

Due to a procedural oversight by the Department of Commerce, the

signature date of this notice of termination, October 21, 1997, was one

day prior to the date of the respondent's formal written request for

termination of the 1993 review, which was submitted to the Department

of Commerce on October 22, 1997. In light of this procedural error, the

Department of Commerce rescinded its termination of this review and

reopened the administrative record of this proceeding for comments by

interested parties on the question of termination of this review. After

careful review of the comments submitted by interested parties, the

Department of Commerce decided that this review should be terminated

and hereby terminates this review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Stolz or Thomas Futtner, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

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

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

20230, telephone: (202) 482-4474 or (202) 482-3814, respectively.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Department of Commerce (the Department) published an

antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada on January

12, 1987 (52 FR 1217). On January 5, 1994, the Department published in

the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet

and strip from Canada (59 FR 564). On January 21, 1994, a manufacturer/

exporter, Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc., (Wolverine) requested an

administrative review of its exports of the subject merchandise to the

United States for the period of review (POR) January 1, 1993, through

December 31, 1993. In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(c), we initiated

the review on February 17, 1994 (59 FR 7979). Wolverine was the only

interested party to request this review. On or about October 17, 1997,

Wolverine notified the Department by telephone of its

[[Page 23270]]

intent to request termination of this review. The Department then

prepared a notice of termination for the Federal Register pending

receipt of Wolverine's formal written request. This written request was

dated and received by the Department on October 22, 1997. The notice of

termination was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 1997

(62 FR 56150). However, due to a procedural oversight, the signature

date of the notice was October 21, 1997, one day prior to actual

receipt of the written request for termination. In the interest of

procedural integrity, the Department rescinded its termination of this

review in order to afford interested parties the opportunity to comment

as to whether this review should have been terminated. Hussey Copper,

Ltd.; The Miller Company; Olin Corporation; 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, and United Steelworkers of

America (AFL-CIO) (collectively, the petitioner) and the respondent

both submitted comments and rebuttal comments within the time limits

specified by the Department.

Comments

On January 16, 1998, Wolverine and the petitioner submitted

comments regarding the issue of termination. On January 27, 1998,

Wolverine and the petitioner submitted rebuttal comments with respect

to the January 16, 1998, comments. The following is a summary and the

Department's position on each of these comments.

Comment 1: 1993 Review Virtually Completed, Completion Would Not

Affect the Timing of the 1996 Review. Wolverine claims that completing

the 1993 review would further delay completion of the 1996 review. It

further notes that termination would reduce the Department's

administrative burden. The petitioner claims that the 1993 review was

virtually completed and that the Department's resources would not be

unduly taxed by completing the review. The petitioner further notes

that completing the 1993 review would not cause additional delays or

strain the Department's resources in completion of the 1996 review.

Department Position: Although the review process reached the

preliminary results stage, many critical steps such as arriving at

departmental positions and drafting a final analysis, remained to be

completed. In addition, as in any review, the potential for allegations

of clerical errors as well as the potential for litigation and remands

has to be considered a part of the administrative burden. Thus, the

petitioner is incorrect in claiming that the review was essentially

completed. Notwithstanding this fact, the Department does not believe

that completion of the 1993 review would necessarily delay the

completion of the 1996 review. However, for the reasons stated above,

we determined that it was not required to complete the 1993 review, and

that doing so would not have any affect on our determination with

respect to the 1996 review.

Comment 2: 1993 Review Result Could Affect Outcome of 1996 Review

With Regard to Revocation. The petitioner asserts that the final

outcome of the 1993 review could affect the Department's pending

determination with respect to revocation in the 1996 review. The

petitioner asserts that completion of this review is necessary to

support a historical record of dumping spanning beyond the three years

of zero or de minimis margins on which the revocation request is based.

The petitioner argues that an analysis of such an expanded time-frame

would demonstrate that Wolverine cannot ship to the U.S. in significant

commercial quantities without dumping. Wolverine notes that although

the petitioner claims that the 1993 review could affect the outcome of

the 1996 review, the Department bases each of its determinations on the

factual record of the relevant segment of the proceeding.

Department Position: The Department cannot find merit in the

petitioner's assertion, which was not supported by any compelling

argument and/or factual information. The petitioner has not established

on the record of this 1993 review the precise manner in which the

completed results of this review would potentially have a bearing on

the outcome of the revocation and other issues before the Department

with respect to the 1996 review. Even were the record of the 1993

review to show a marked decline in U.S. shipments as Wolverine's

dumping margins became zero or de minimis, this by itself would not

necessarily lead the Department to determine that these shipments were

not at less than commercial quantities, and would not in itself support

denial of revocation as requested in the 1996 review.

Comment 3: Department Obligated to Consider Petitioner's Interests.

The petitioner claims that the Department is obligated to consider the

interests of the domestic industry, noting that the primary purpose of

the antidumping statute is to protect domestic industry. Wolverine

asserts that the petitioner's claim that the Department is obligated to

consider the interests of the domestic industry is not based on any

authority, law, or regulation. Wolverine asserts that it was the only

party to request the review and had subsequently requested termination.

Wolverine states that it is the only party affected by termination and

that the petitioner has no legal basis on which to object to

termination. Finally, Wolverine notes that the petitioner was served by

hand a copy of the request for termination on October 22, 1997, but did

not object to termination until after publication of the termination

notice in the Federal Register, seven days later.

Department Position: The fact that Wolverine was the only party to

request the review has not been disputed and it has been the

Department's practice to routinely terminate reviews at the request of

an interested party when no other interested party has requested the

review. In this case, Wolverine was the only party to request the

review and subsequently requested that the review be terminated.

Although Wolverine's request to terminate this review was submitted

after the 90-day time limit for termination provided for at section

353.22(a)(5) of our regulations, that provision also states that the

Secretary may extend this time limit if the Secretary determines it is

reasonable to do so. In fact, it may be considered that the domestic

industry's interest is being served in that upon termination of this

review, liquidation of affected entries will be at 21.39 percent, the

cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry, whereas the dumping

margin preliminarily determined in this review was 1.39 percent.

Comment 4: Department Not Obligated to Notify Petitioner of

Termination. Wolverine notes that the Department was not required by

its regulations to consult with interested parties or consider comments

in its decision to terminate the review.

Department Position: We agree with Wolverine. The only party to

request this review, Wolverine, subsequently requested that we

terminate this review. In addition, the petitioner was duly served with

a copy of the respondent's request to terminate this review on October

22, 1997, in advance of publication of our original termination notice

on October 29, 1997. Upon the petitioner's October 30, 1997, objection

to termination, although the Department was under no legal obligation

to do so, in the interest of procedural integrity, the Department

reopened the record of this review after the original termination to

consider interested party comments regarding termination.

[[Page 23271]]

Termination

The Department has considered all comments submitted by interested

parties and has determined that this review should be terminated.

Because Wolverine was the only party to request this review, and

subsequently withdrew its request, and because we find that there are

no other compelling reasons to continue this review, we are terminating

this review.

The Department shall instruct the Customs Service to liquidate all

appropriate entries. Shipments entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption during the January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993,

POR will be liquidated at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time

of entry. Insofar as the final results for the more current POR,

January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995, were published prior to

this termination notice, the cash deposit instructions contained in the

notice covering the January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995, POR will

continue to apply to all shipments to the United States of subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or

after April 8, 1997 (the date of publication of the final results of

review covering the 1995 POR).

This notice also serves as 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 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 orders (APOs) of thier responsibility

concerning disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO

in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's regulations.

Timely within notification of the return or destruction of APO

materials is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of

the Act and 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5).

Dated: April 15, 1998.

Maria Harris Tildon,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-11277 Filed 4-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M