[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18720-18721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10554]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]
Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Amendment of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of amendment of final results of antidumping duty
administrative reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 27, 1995 the Department published the final results of
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and
strip from Germany. Clerical errors which were timely filed by the
petitioners were not corrected by the Department prior to the time the
petitioners filed suit with the Court of International Trade (CIT).
Therefore, the Department requested leave to correct the clerical
errors in this case. Pursuant to orders issued by the CIT on February
29, 1996, granting leave to the Department to correct these ministerial
errors, we have corrected several ministerial errors with respect to
sales of subject merchandise by one German manufacturer/exporter. The
errors were present in our final results of reviews.
The reviews cover the following three periods:
--March 1, 1990, through February 28, 1991;
--March 1, 1991, through February 29, 1992;
--March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.
We are publishing this amendment to the final results of reviews in
accordance with 19 CFR Sec. 353.28(c).
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Killiam or John Kugelman,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the final
results of antidumping administrative reviews on July 27, 1995 (60 FR
38542). The reviews covered one manufacturer/exporter, Wieland Werke AG
(Wieland), and the periods March 1, 1990 through February 28, 1991
(fourth review),
[[Page 18721]]
March 1, 1991 through February 29, 1992 (fifth review), and March 1,
1992 through February 28, 1993 (sixth review).
For a detailed description of the products covered by this order,
see the final results of review referenced above.
On August 7, 1995, the petitioners, Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller
Company, Outokumpu American Brass, 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, alleged that in calculating the final
antidumping duty margins the Department committed the ministerial
errors described below. The Department found the allegations
constituted ministerial errors (see memo from the case analyst to Wendy
Frankel dated February 9, 1996). However, because the petitioners filed
suit with the CIT before we could correct this error, we were unable to
make the corrections and publish the amended final results of reviews.
Subsequently, the CIT granted the Department leave to correct these
ministerial errors.
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.
Ministerial Errors in Final Results of Review
1990-1991 Administrative Review
Comment 1: The petitioners allege that in the final results the
Department incorrectly inserted a line of programming which adjusted
Wieland's credit expenses based on the ratio between Wieland's U.S.
deposit rate and Wieland's German short-term borrowing rate, whereas in
our notice of final results we stated that we used the U.S. prime rate
to calculate Wieland's imputed U.S. credit expenses for this period.
Department's Position: We have reviewed the questionnaire
responses, case briefs, and computer programs, and we agree that
including the line of programming in question was a clerical error.
Accordingly, we have removed the incorrect line of programming for
these amended final results.
Comment 2: The petitioners allege that in the cost test, the
Department failed to subtract after-sale rebates and home market
freight charges from home market prices, and failed to add home market
packing expenses to cost of production.
Department's Position: We agree with the petitioners that it was a
ministerial error to fail to deduct after-sale rebates and foreign
inland freight expenses from price, and to fail to add packing expenses
to costs, for the cost test. We have changed these portions of our
analysis accordingly for these amended final results.
1991-1992 Administrative Review
Comment 3: The petitioners allege that the Department miscalculated
the metal value for sales of alloy CDA250 by referring to the average
value of two other alloys, one of which was CDA 260/M32; the
petitioners argue that this last should have been CDA 260/M30.
Department's Position: We have reviewed the computer programs and
we agree with the petitioners. We have corrected our analysis
accordingly for these amended final results.
Comment 4: The petitioners allege that the Department did not use
home market sales of alloy CDA 250 for comparison to U.S. sales in its
computer program, despite our statement in the final results of review
that we had used them.
Department's Position: We have reviewed the computer programs and
we agree with the petitioners. Accordingly, we have corrected our
analysis to include the appropriate computer language to allow for
comparison of U.S. sales to home market sales of alloy CDA 250, where
appropriate.
1991-1992 and 1992-1993 Administrative Reviews
Comment 5: The petitioners allege that in both reviews the
Department incorrectly entered plus signs where minus signs should
appear in the value-added tax adjustments for early payment discounts.
Department's Position: We have reviewed the computer programs, we
agree with the petitioners, and we have corrected our analyses
accordingly for these amended final results.
Amended Final Results of Reviews
After correcting the final results for these ministerial errors,
the Department has determined that the following margins exist for the
fourth, fifth, and sixth review periods:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter Period Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG.............................. 3/1/90-2/28/91 2.57
3/1/91-2/29/92 2.37
3/1/92-2/28/93 0.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the
above percentages.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR Sec. 353.26 to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during the review periods. 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.
These administrative reviews and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1673(d)) and section
353.28(c) of the Department's regulations.
Dated: April 23, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-10554 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P