Industrial Nitrocellulose From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-428-803]

Industrial Nitrocellulose From Germany; 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 of industrial nitrocellulose from Germany.

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

SUMMARY: On April 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce published its

preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty

order on industrial nitrocellulose from Germany for the period July 1,

1996, through June 30, 1997 (63 FR 17364). The Department of Commerce

has now completed its administrative review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930. For information on the assessment of

antidumping duties for the reviewed company, and for all non-reviewed

companies, see the Final Results of Review section of this notice. This

review covers imports of industrial nitrocellulose from one producer,

Wolff Walsrode AG.

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We have based our analysis on the comments

received and have changed the results from those presented in the

preliminary results of review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson or Zev Primor, AD/CVD

Enforcement Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade

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

Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-

4195, and 482-4114, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 9, 1998, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register its preliminary results of the

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on industrial

nitrocellulose from Germany for the period July 1, 1996, through June

30, 1997 (63 FR 17364). The Department has now completed this

administrative review, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The 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 made 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 of Commerce's (the

Department's) regulations refer to the regulations as stated in 62 FR

27296, May 19, 1997.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are shipments of industrial

nitrocellulose (INC) from Germany. INC is a dry, white, amorphous

synthetic chemical with a nitrogen content between 10.8 and 12.2

percent, and is produced from the reaction of cellulose with nitric

acid. INC is used as a film-former in coatings, lacquers, furniture

finishes, and printing inks. The scope of this order does not include

explosive grade nitrocellulose, which has a nitrogen content of greater

than 12.2 percent. INC is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) subheading 3912.20.00. White the HTS item number is

provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description

remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage. The review

period is July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received comments from the respondent, Wolff

Walsrode (Wolff) and the petitioner, Hercules Incorporated.

Comment 1: Respondent argues that the Department used Wolff's

budgeted operating result from its financial statement rather than its

actual operating result in calculating Wolff's constructed export price

(CEP) profit ratio. Petitioner did not comment.

Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent that

Wolff's actual operating result should be used in calculating Wolff's

constructed export price profit ratio because the actual operating

result is the more accurate than the budgeted operating results. The

Department has corrected this error.

Comment 2: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently

included all contemporaneous home market sales in the computer

program's calculation of weighted-averaged normal values rather than

selecting the sales during the most contemporaneous month as required

by section 351.414(e)(2)(i) of the Department's regulations. Petitioner

argues that this error only affects five U.S. sales and would be

corrected in all but one instance when the Department corrects the

product coding, as requested by the respondent. See comment six.

Department's Position: The Department has utilized respondent's

computer programming language as outlined in their case brief for the

final results. The Department notes that the computer program does

calculate the weighted-average normal values during the most

contemporaneous month as required by section 351.414(e)(2)(i). However,

while the revised programming altered variable names, it did not change

the results of the program.

Comment 3: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently

failed to add U.S. freight revenue in calculating the net CEP price.

Petitioner did not comment.

Department's Position: The Department agrees with the respondent

and has corrected this error.

Comment 4: Respondent argues that the Department inadvertently

failed to deduct the CEP offset from the normal value of home market

sales matched to U.S. CEP sales with no commissions. Respondent also

argues that the Department failed to deduct the commission offset from

normal value of home market sales matched to U.S. sales with

commissions. Petitioner did not comment.

Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent and

has corrected these programming errors.

Comment 5: Respondent argues that the Department should calculate

one assessment rate for transmittal to the U.S. Customs Service because

Customs cannot readily determine whether a particular importation is an

EP or CEP sale. Petitioner agrees with respondent, but wants to ensure

that the entire amount of antidumping duty calculated by the Department

is collected by Customs.

Department's Position: The Department agrees with respondent that

in this instance there should be one rate per importer and has

corrected this error.

Comment 6: Petitioner contends that the Department incorrectly used

the SAS function, COMPRESS, in the

[[Page 43373]]

creation of the model matching hierarchy. As a result, the variables

were improperly sorted. In addition, petitioner claims that the

Department incorrectly defined three product characteristic codes in

the model match program. Respondent agrees that there is a programming

error in the model matching hierarchy, but disagrees with petitioner's

suggested solution. Respondent argues that the problem with the model

match program identified by the petitioner is not solely caused by the

COMPRESS code, but also by the Department's methodology in hand-coding

viscosity levels in the program. Respondent argues that in addition to

petitioner's recommendation, the Department must also alter the U.S.

viscosity hand-coding section of the program to result in a more

accurate model matching.

Department's Position: The Department agrees with both petitioner

and respondent that there is a programming error with three models in

the matching hierarchy. The Department has corrected the programming

errors in the model matching hierarchy and the error in the hand coding

section. However, the Department disagrees with petitioner and that the

SAS function, COMPRESS, caused an improper sorting of models. The

compress function is used to minimize space and has no impact on the

model matching hierarchy.

Comment 7: Petitioner contends that only sales to the United States

within the 12-month review period should be included in the model match

program, and that the month code should be corrected. Respondent did

not comment.

Department's Position: The Department agrees with petitioner and

has corrected these programming errors.

Final Results of the Review

As a result of the comments received we have revised our analysis

and determine that the following margins exist for the period July 1,

1996, through June 30, 1997:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Wolff Walsrode AG (WWAG)................................... 7.18

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

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall

assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between normal value and export price may vary from the

percentages stated above. We have calculated a company-specific duty

assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of

the same sales. The rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of

that particular company made during the POR. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of industrial nitrocellulose from Germany, 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 Act: (1) the cash deposit rates

for the reviewed company will be the rate for the firm as stated above;

(2) if the exporter is not covered in this review, or the original

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; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, previous reviews, or the original LTFV investigation, but the

manufacture is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for

the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)

for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash

deposit rate will be 3.84 percent, the ``all others'' rate from 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 351.402(f) 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 the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to

comply with the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with

sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: August 6, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 98-21789 Filed 8-12-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M