[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Pages 49582-49584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23794]



Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; 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 


SUMMARY: On April 27, 1995, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada. The review 
period is January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992. The review covers 
one manufacturer/exporter.
    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we 
have changed our results from those presented in our preliminary 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1995.

Sally Hastings or John Kugelman, Office of Antidumping Compliance, 

[[Page 49583]]
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230; telephone: (202) 482-4366 or 482-0649, respectively.



    On April 27, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 20670) the preliminary results of its administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada (52 FR 
1217, January 12, 1987).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

    The Department has now completed this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Tariff Act). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute 
and to the Department's regulations refer to the provisions as they 
existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

    Imports covered by this review are brass sheet and strip, other 
than leaded and tin brass sheet and strip. 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. Products whose chemical composition is defined by other 
C.D.A. or U.N.S. series are not covered by this order.
    The physical dimensions of the products covered by this review are 
brass sheet and strip of solid rectangular cross section over 0.006 
inches (0.15 millimeters) through 0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in 
finished thicknesses or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-
reels (traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included.
    During the review period such merchandise was classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. 
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for 
Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order 
remains dispositve.
    This review covers one Canadian manufacturer/exporter, Wolverine 
Tube (Canada) Inc. (Wolverine), and the period January 1, 1992 through 
December 31, 1992.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. The petitioners in this case are Outokumpu 
American Brass, Hussey Copper Ltd., The Miller Company, Olin 
Corporation-Brass Group, 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 
(AFL-CIO/CLC). Petitioners timely submitted a case brief. Respondent 
Wolverine did not file a case brief and none of the interested parties 
submitted a rebuttal brief.
    Comment 1: Petitioners agree with the Department's use of their 
submitted fabrication and packing cost information as best information 
available in calculating Wolverine's cost of production (COP) and 
constructed value (CV). However, petitioners argue that the Department 
should adjust the daily metal prices submitted by Wolverine to include 
yield losses, transportation costs, and Wolverine's use of virgin 
metals and scrap.
    Department's Position: We agree in principle with the petitioners' 
comment. However, since petitioners used Wolverine's unadjusted metal 
prices in their August 27, 1993 allegation of sales below cost and 
because neither petitioners nor respondent provided information 
concerning yield losses, transportation costs, or Wolverine's use of 
virgin metals and scrap in their sales-below-cost allegation, we have 
no information which would enable us to quantify these items. 
Therefore, we have continued to use the respondent's submitted metal 
prices, unadjusted for yield losses, transportation costs, and 
utilization of virgin metals and scrap, as cost of materials.
    Comment 2: Petitioners state that there is no indication that 
Wolverine's submitted metal prices include the reported Goods & 
Services Tax (GST) of seven percent. Petitioners argue that the 
Department incorrectly compared GST-exclusive COPs to GST-inclusive 
home market prices, thus understating the number of home market sales 
below the cost of production.
    Department's Position: We disagree. Line 109 of the computer 
program defines net price, which we used only for price-to-price 
comparisons, not the sales-below-cost test. In line 133 of the computer 
program we compared a GST-exclusive unit price to a GST-exclusive COP.
    Comment 3: Petitioners contend that because the Department used in 
its COP analysis U.S. fabrication costs submitted by the petitioners as 
best information available, we should have adjusted these costs for the 
differences between U.S. and Canadian labor costs.
    Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners. In these 
final results, we have accounted for such differences by using Canadian 
labor costs based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Hourly 
Compensation Costs for Nonferrous Metal Manufacturing in Canada in 
1992, rather than the 1991 figures submitted by the petitioners in 
their August 27, 1993 sales-below-cost allegation.
    Comment 4: Petitioners argue that the Department should adjust 
Wolverine's general and administrative (G&A) expenses to include costs 
associated with Wolverine's closure of its New Westminster facility and 
Wolverine's amortization costs.
    Department's Position: It is the Department practice to include in 
G&A those expenses relating to factory closure, even if the factory 
does not produce subject merchandise, because those expenses are a 
general cost of doing business. (See Silicon Metal From Argentina: 
Final Results of Administrative Review, 58 FR 65336 (December 14, 1993) 
and Sweaters Wholly or in Chief Weight of Man-made Fiber From Taiwan: 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 55 FR 34585 
(August 23, 1990)). In its Supplemental Cost Response, submitted on 
April 28, 1994, Wolverine stated that it did not include the New 
Westminster expenses in its allocation of G&A in the previously 
submitted cost data. Therefore, we have allocated a portion of the New 
Westminster factory closure expenses to Wolverine's Fergus, Ontario, 
Canada facility (which is the sole Wolverine factory that produces 
brass sheet and strip), and have added that portion to our calculation 
of G&A.
    With regard to Wolverine's amortization expense, we saw no evidence 
and the petitioner has provided no basis or grounds to believe that the 
G&A expense reported for the Fergus facility does not include a portion 
of Wolverine's corporate amortization expense. For this reason, we have 
not altered the G&A expense, other than for the closure expenses 
discussed above.

Final Results of the Review

    As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine 
that the following margin exists for the period January 1, 1992 through 
December 31, 1992:

                    Manufacturer/exporter                        margin 
Wolverine....................................................      25.49

[[Page 49584]]

    The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual 
differences between United States price (USP) and FMV may vary from the 
percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement 
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective 
upon publication of these final results of review for all shipment of 
Canadian brass sheet and strip entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 
for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the 
reviewed company will be the rate listed above; (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 previous review, or the original less than fair value (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 8.10 percent, the ``all 
others'' rate established in 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 353.26 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 a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written notification of 
return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial 
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 

    Dated: September 13, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-23794 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]