Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-475-059]

Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty

administrative review of pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative

review of the antidumping duty finding on pressure sensitive plastic

tape (PSPT) from Italy in response to a request from

[[Page 37505]]

a manufacturer of the subject merchandise, Autoadesivi Magri s.r.l. The

period of review (POR) is October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998.

This review covers products manufactured and exported by Autoadesivi

Magri s.r.l. We have preliminarily found that sales of subject

merchandise have been made below normal value. If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference

between the export price or constructed export price and normal value.

We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary

results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the

argument: (1) A statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nova J. Daly or Thomas Futtner, AD/CVD

Enforcement, Group II, Office Four, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone

(202) 482-0989, and 482-3814, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of

1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act

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

otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's

regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (April

1998).

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by the review are shipments of PSPT measuring 1\3/

8\ inches in width and not exceeding 4 millimeters (mils) in thickness.

During the POR, the above described PSPT was classified under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings 3919.90.20 and 3919.90.50.

The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs

Service (Customs) purposes. The written description remains dispositive

as to the scope of the product coverage.

Background

On October 21, 1977, the Department of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register (42 FR 56110) the antidumping duty

finding on PSPT from Italy. On October 9, 1998, the Department

published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative

Review'' of this antidumping finding for the period, October 1, 1997

through September 30, 1998 (63 FR 54440). On October 28, 1998, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Autoadesivi Magri s.r.l. (Magri), a

manufacturer of the subject merchandise, requested that the Department

conduct an administrative review of its exports of subject merchandise

to the United States. We did not receive a request to conduct an

administrative review from any other party. On November 30, 1998, the

Department published a ``Notice of Initiation of Administrative

Review'' (63 FR 65748) covering the POR for the above manufacturer.

On November 10, 1998, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to

Magri, setting an original deadline of January 11, 1999, for its

response. On November 30, 1998, Magri requested an extension of the

deadline for submitting its response to January 25, 1999. We granted

this request for an extension on December 11, 1998, and specified that

if Magri had any questions, it should contact the Department. We did

not receive a response to the Department's questionnaire from Magri. In

a February 17, 1999 letter to Magri we again afforded it the

opportunity to respond to the Department's questionnaire. In the

letter, we stated that if Magri had so far not responded because it had

no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, it could so respond

by March 15, 1999. We also specified that, otherwise, the Department

would take Magri's non-response to mean that it had decided not to

cooperate with the review. We clearly stated that, as a consequence, we

would apply facts available (FA), as stated in our November 10, 1998,

questionnaire.

Because we did not receive a questionnaire response or any other

correspondence from Magri, we have determined that we must resort to FA

for Magri pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act (see ``Use of Facts

Otherwise Available'' section, below).

Use of Facts Otherwise Available

Magri did not respond to our original questionnaire or to a follow-

up letter that was issued to it. (See ``Background'' section of this

notice). Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested

party: (1) Withholds information that has been requested by the

Department, (2) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or

in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and

782(e) of the Act, (3) significantly impedes a determination under the

antidumping statute, or (4) provides such information but the

information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, then the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act,

use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.

Because Magri did not respond to the questionnaire or the follow-up

letter, we preliminarily determine that, in accordance with section

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of FA is appropriate for Magri. In

addition, there is no information on the record within the meaning of

section 782(e) of the Act with regard to sales by Magri and, therefore,

no information to consider as an alternative to FA in determining the

margin for this company.

Because Magri completely failed to respond, despite the

Department's best efforts to accommodate the company, we must conclude

that Magri failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply

with the Department's request for information.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds

that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the

Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of

that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available. The

section provides that an adverse inference may include reliance on

information derived from: (1) The petition, (2) the final determination

in the investigation segment of the proceeding, (3) a previous review

under section 751 of the Act or a determination under section 753 of

the Act, or (4) any other information placed on the record. In

addition, the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the

URAA, H.R. Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994), establishes that the Department

may employ an adverse inference ``to ensure that the party does not

obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had

cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870. In employing adverse inferences,

the SAA instructs the Department to consider ``the extent to which a

party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation.'' Id.; see also

Roller Chain Other Than Bicycle, From Japan; Notice of Final Results

and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

69472, 69477 (November 10, 1997).

Because Magri did not cooperate by complying with our request for

information, and in order to ensure that it does not benefit from its

lack of

[[Page 37506]]

cooperation, we are employing an adverse inference in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available. The Department's practice when

selecting an adverse FA rate from among the possible sources of

information has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse

so ``as to effectuate the purpose of the FA rule to induce respondents

to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a

timely manner.'' See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From

Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 63 FR

8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998).

In order to ensure that the rate is sufficiently adverse so as to

induce Magri's future cooperation, we have assigned the company as

adverse FA the highest rate from any prior segment of the proceeding,

12.66 percent. This rate was calculated in Pressure Sensitive Plastic

Tape From Italy; Final Results of Administrative Duty Review of

Antidumping Finding, 48 FR 35686 (August 5, 1983) (Final Results 1977-

80), covering the period February 18, 1977 through September 30, 1980.

Information from prior segments of the proceeding, such as involved

here, constitutes ``secondary information'' under section 776(c) of the

Act. Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to

the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information used for FA

by reviewing independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The SAA

provides that to ``corroborate'' means simply that the Department will

satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative

value. See SAA at 870. As noted in Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller

Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components

Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (TRBs), to corroborate

secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable,

examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. However,

unlike other types of information, such as input costs or selling

expenses, there are no independent sources from which the Department

can derive calculated dumping margins; the only source for margins is

administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if

the Department chooses as total adverse FA a calculated dumping margin

from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question

the reliability of the margin for that time period.

As to the relevance of the margin used for adverse FA, the

Department stated in TRBs that it will ``consider information

reasonably at its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that

would render a margin irrelevant. Where circumstances indicate that the

selected margin is not appropriate as adverse FA, the Department will

disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.'' Id.

As stated above, the highest rate determined in any prior segment

of the proceeding is 12.66 percent, a calculated rate from Final

Results 1977-80.

In the absence of information on the administrative record that

application of the 12.66 percent rate to Magri would be inappropriate

as an adverse FA rate in the instant review, we have applied, as FA,

the 12.66 percent margin from a prior administrative review of this

finding, and have satisfied the corroboration requirements under

section 776(c) of the Act.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the

following margin exists for the POR:

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

Weighted-

Manufacturer/exporter average margin

percentage

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

Autoadesivi Magri s.r.l................................. 12.66

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to

parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with

these preliminary results within 5 days of the date of publication of

this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days

of the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments

in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A

statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. All

case briefs must be submitted within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to issues raised in

the case briefs, may be filed not later than seven days after the case

briefs are filed. A hearing, if requested, will be held two days after

the date the rebuttal briefs are filed or the first business day

thereafter.

The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this

administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis

of the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within

120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this

review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to

Customs. Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be

effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of PSPT from Italy 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 rate for the reviewed

company will be the rate established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or

exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the original less-

than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or in a previous review, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the most recent rate published in the

final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or

exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a

firm covered in this review, a previous 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 review or in any previous reviews or in the

original LTFV investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 12.66

percent, the ``new shipper'' rate established in the final results of

the first antidumping finding administrative review conducted by the

Department (see Final Results 1977-80, 48 FR at 35688).1

These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

\1\ This rate will constitute the ``all others'' rate the for

this review. In proceedings governed by antidumping findings, unless

we are able to ascertain the ``all others'' rate from the Treasury

LTFV investigation, the Department has determined that it is

appropriate to adopt the ``new shipper'' rate established in the

first final results of administrative review published by the

Department (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical

errors as a result of litigation) as the ``all others'' rate for the

purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current and future

administrative reviews, (see, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review of Certain Internal-Combustion Industrial

Forklift Trucks From Japan, 59 FR 1374, 1384, (January 10,1994)).

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

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) of the Department's regulations

to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to

[[Page 37507]]

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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with

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

Dated: July 2, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-17644 Filed 7-9-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P