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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-17644

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** July 12, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 37504

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-17644. Public record. Not legal advice.