[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18801-18806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8419]
[[Page 18801]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]
Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and
strip (BSS) from Germany. For the period of review (POR) March 1, 2008,
through February 28, 2009, we have preliminarily determined that U.S.
sales have not been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary
results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested
parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McClure or George McMahon, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
5973 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping
duty order on BSS from Germany on March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6997), amended
on September 23, 1987 (52 FR 35750).
On May 5, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of this order for the POR. See
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended
Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 9077
(March 2, 2009). On March 30, 2009, the Department received a timely
request for an administrative review of this antidumping duty order
from Wieland-Werke AG (Wieland). On April 27, 2009, we published a
notice initiating an administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on BSS from Germany covering one respondent, Wieland. See
Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 19042 (April 27,
2009).
On May 7, 2009, the Department issued an antidumping duty
questionnaire to Wieland. We received Wieland's response to Section A
of the Department's questionnaire on June 11, 2009 (Section AQR),
Sections B-C on July 1, 2009 (Section B-C QR), and Section D on July
21, 2009 (Section DQR). The Department received comments from the
Petitioners \1\ regarding Wieland's questionnaire responses on June 25,
2009, July 2, 2009, October 22, 2009, and February 4, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Petitioners include GBC Metals, LLC of Global Brass and
Copper, Inc., doing business as Olin Brass, Heyco Metals, Inc.,
Luvata Buffalo, Inc., PMX Industries, Inc., and Revere Copper
Products, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the Sections A through D responses from Wieland,
the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Wieland. The
Department issued additional supplemental questions, after reviewing
Wieland's supplemental questionnaire responses. On November 18, 2009,
the Department issued an extension of the deadline for the preliminary
results of this antidumping duty administrative review from December 1,
2009, until March 31, 2010. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany:
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of
Administrative Review, 74 FR 59523 (November 18, 2009). As explained in
the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll
deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government
from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all deadlines in this
segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven days. The revised
deadline for the preliminary results of this antidumping duty
administrative review is now April 7, 2010. See Memorandum to the
Record from Ronald Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding
``Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government
Closure During the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.''
In letters to the Department dated March 4, 2010, and March 12,
2010, the Petitioners state that Wieland was the importer of record for
the U.S. sale made during the POR and, therefore, Wieland is liable for
any antidumping duties assessed. Pursuant to Wieland's role as the
importer, the Petitioners allege that Wieland has put itself in a
position to make payment or reimbursement of any antidumping duties
related to its U.S. sale. As such, the Petitioners assert that the
transaction in question is subject to a reduction in the export price,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.402(f).\2\ In a letter to the Department dated
March 8, 2010, at page 6, Wieland rebuts the Petitioners' assertion
that its single U.S. sale is subject to the aforementioned regulation,
arguing that Wieland ``was both the exporter and importer and thus
cannot reimburse itself.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 19 CFR 351.402(f) states: (f) Reimbursement of antidumping
duties and countervailing duties--(1) In general. (i) In calculating
the export price (or the constructed export price), the Secretary
will deduct the amount of any AD duty or CVD duty which the exporter
or producer: (A) Paid directly on behalf of the importer; or (B)
Reimbursed to the importer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has considered the facts of the instant review.
Consistent with the Department's practice with respect to this issue,
we do not find that Wieland's sale to the United States during the POR
is subject to 19 CFR 351.402(f). Our decision as to reimbursement is
based upon our interpretation of this regulation, which is that two
separate corporate entities must exist to invoke the reimbursement
regulation. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR
33041, 33044 (June 17, 1998). In this instance, though it is both an
exporter and importer, there is still only one corporate entity,
Wieland, not two.
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order covers shipments of brass sheet and strip,
other than leaded and tinned, from Germany. 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; this review does not cover products the chemical
compositions of which are defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. In
physical dimensions, the products covered by this review have a solid
rectangular cross section over 0.006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through
0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished thickness or gauge,
regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse wound), and cut-
to-length products are included. The merchandise is currently
classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. Although the HTSUS item
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the
Department's written description of the scope of this order remains
dispositive.
Period of Review
The period of review is March 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009.
[[Page 18802]]
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), we intend to verify the information relied upon prior to the
final results of the instant review. Our verification results will be
outlined in the public version of our verification report, which will
be on file in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 1117 of
the Main Commerce Building.
Analysis
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondent that are covered by the description
contained in the ``Scope of the Order'' section above and were sold in
the home market during the POR, to be the foreign like product for
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales.
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in
Appendix V of the initial antidumping questionnaire we provided to
Wieland.\3\ When there were no appropriate comparison market sales of
comparable merchandise, we compared the merchandise sold in the United
States to constructed value (CV), in accordance with section 773(a)(4)
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Department's Antidumping Duty Questionnaire issued
to Wieland, dated May 7, 2009, on the record in the CRU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the preliminary results, where appropriate, we have
calculated the adjustment for differences in merchandise based on the
difference in the variable cost of manufacturing (VCOM) between each
U.S. model and the most similar home market model selected for
comparison.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to
the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value''
sections of this notice. During the POR, Wieland had only one shipment
of BSS to the United States.
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to the
individual U.S. transaction price. In order to lessen the potential
distortion to sales prices which result from significantly changing
costs, we are using a quarterly costing approach; we have not made
price-to-price comparisons outside of a quarter. See below and
Memorandum through James Terpstra from Dennis McClure, titled ``Sales
Analysis Memorandum--Wieland-Werke AG (Sales Analysis Memo--Wieland),''
dated April 7, 2010, and available in the CRU.
Export Price
For the price to the United States, we used EP, in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP when the merchandise was
sold by the producer or exporter outside of the United States directly
to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to
importation. We based EP on the reported delivery term to the first
unaffiliated customer in, or for exportation to, the United States.
In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made
deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses including inland
freight from plant or warehouse to port of exportation, foreign
brokerage, handling and loading charges, international freight,
insurance, U.S. inland freight expenses, other transportation expenses
for cargo scanning and port charges, and U.S. duties. See Sales
Analysis Memo--Wieland.
As stated at 19 CFR 351.401(i), the Department will use the
respondent's invoice date as the date of sale unless another date
better reflects the date upon which the exporter or producer
establishes the essential terms of sale. Wieland reported the order
confirmation date as the date of sale for the U.S. market and the
earlier of fabrication order confirmation date, shipment date, or
invoice date as the sale date in the home market, claiming that these
dates reflect the date on which the material terms of sale were
finalized. See Section B-C QR at B-12-B-13 and C-7.
We have examined the information on the record and preliminarily
find that the invoice date better reflects the date upon which the
producer established its material terms of sale in both the U.S. and
home markets. Specifically, Wieland reported that its ``written general
terms of delivery, applicable to both domestic and export sales,
provide that Wieland is entitled to make excess or short deliveries up
to 10 percent of the agreed weights or units. However, Wieland has
unwritten understandings/established practices with certain customers
allowing for greater variations without prior approval.'' See Wieland's
Section A-C Supplemental Questionnaire Response (Section A-C SQR),
dated September 29, 2010, at SAC-29. Thus, Wieland has reported sales
transactions, in both the U.S. and home markets, in which the quantity
exceeds its standard tolerance, and the basis for such increases can
only be supported by ``unwritten understandings/established
practices.'' Based on the fact that there is no written contract or
sales agreement documenting agreement to the change in terms, the
Department finds that the invoice date represents the date in which the
material terms of sale are finalized.\4\ Because the data specific to
the date of sale discussion are proprietary in nature, see the
Department's sales calculation memorandum from Dennis McClure through
James Terpstra to the File titled, ``Sales Analysis Memo--Wieland'' for
additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada, 74 FR
16843 (April 13, 2009), and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value
A. Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine
whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Wieland's
volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume
of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Pursuant to section
773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404(b), because Wieland's
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable.
Arm's-Length Test
Sales to affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's
length were excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales
were made at arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to
affiliated and unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges,
direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. In accordance with the
Department's practice, if the prices charged to an affiliated party
were, on average, between 98 and 102 percent of the prices charged to
unaffiliated parties for merchandise identical or most similar to that
sold to the affiliated party, we consider the sales to be at arm's-
length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c); see also Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Notice
of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR
[[Page 18803]]
46110, 46112 (September 8, 2009); unchanged in the final, see Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of
Korea: Notice of Final Results of the Fifteenth Administrative Review,
75 FR 13490 (March 22, 2010). Conversely, where the affiliated party
did not pass the arm's-length test, all sales to that affiliated party
have been excluded from the NV calculation. See Antidumping
Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67
FR 69186 (November 15, 2002). For the arm's-length test, we matched
only affiliated sales to unaffiliated sales within the same quarter in
which the sale occurred, because we are using a quarterly costing
approach, to lessen the potential distortion to sales prices which
result from significantly changing costs.
B. Cost Reporting Period
The Department's normal practice is to calculate an annual
weighted-average cost for the entire POR. See, e.g., Certain Pasta from
Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR
77852 (December 13, 2000) (Pasta from Italy), and accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 18 and Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Carbon and Certain Alloy
Steel Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 (January 24, 2006) (Wire Rod
from Canada), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 5 (explaining the Department's practice of computing a single
weighted-average cost for the entire period). This methodology is
predictable and generally applicable in all proceedings. However, the
Department recognizes that possible distortions may result when our
annual average cost method is used during a period of significant cost
changes.
In these circumstances, in determining whether to deviate from our
normal methodology, the Department has evaluated the case-specific
record evidence using two primary factors: (1) the change in the cost
of manufacturing (COM) recognized by the respondent during the POR must
be deemed significant; and, (2) the record evidence must show that
sales during the shorter averaging periods could be reasonably linked
with the cost of production (COP) or CV during the same shorter
averaging periods. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From
Belgium: Final Results of Administrative Review, 73 FR 75398, 75399
(December 11, 2008) (SSPC from Belgium) and Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review, 74
FR 6365 (February 9, 2009) (2006-2007 Final Results).
a. Significance of Cost Changes
Record evidence indicates that Wieland experienced significant
changes in the total COM during the POR and that the change in COM is
primarily attributable to the price volatility for copper and zinc,
major inputs consumed in the production of the merchandise under
consideration. The record indicates that copper and zinc prices have
decreased dramatically throughout the POR. Specifically, the record
data show that the percentage difference between the high and low
quarterly costs for brass products exceeded 25 percent during the POR.
As a result, we have determined for the preliminary results that the
changes in COM for Wieland are significant.
b. Linkage Between Cost and Sales Information
If the Department finds cost changes to be significant in a given
administrative review or investigation, the Department subsequently
evaluates whether there is evidence of linkage between the cost changes
and the sales prices for the given POI/POR. Our definition of linkage
does not require direct traceability between specific sales and their
specific production cost, but rather relies on whether there are
elements which would indicate a reasonable correlation between the
underlying costs and the final sales prices levied by the company.
These correlative elements may be measured and defined in a number of
ways depending on the associated industry, and the overall production
and sales processes.
In the instant case, Wieland's sales process is effectively the
sale of two separate products: commodity metal (i.e., copper and zinc)
and fabrication. For metal, which represents a significant part of the
total price, customers are charged a price that is determined, for the
most part, on the London Metal Exchange (LME) metal price on the date
of the customer's choosing (the ``metal fixation date'').
We find that, because both the metal costs and prices charged for
the metal are reasonably linked to the market prices promulgated by the
LME, there is a reasonable link between the underlying costs and sales
prices.
In light of the two factors discussed above, we have preliminarily
determined that a quarterly costing approach with respect to Wieland
would lead to more accurate comparisons in our antidumping duty
calculations. Thus, we used quarterly indexed annual average direct
material costs and annual weighted-average fabrication costs in the COP
and CV calculations.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
Because we found that Wieland did not act to the best of its
ability in providing information to the Department in the most recently
completed administrative review in which it participated, we applied
total adverse facts available which included a finding on that basis
that Wieland's sales were made below cost. Therefore, the Department
disregarded sales below the COP in the last completed review in which
Wieland participated.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany, 64 FR 43342 (August 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the Department finds reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, that sales of
the foreign like product under consideration for the determination of
NV in this review may have been made at prices below COP. Thus,
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we examined whether sales
from Wieland in the home market were made at prices below the COP.
We compared sales of the foreign like product in the home market
with model-specific COP figures. In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of
materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like
product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses,
financial expenses and all costs and expenses incidental to placing the
foreign like product in packed condition and ready for shipment.
In our sales-below-cost analysis, we relied on home market sales
and COP information provided by Wieland in its questionnaire responses,
except where noted below.
As discussed above, we used quarterly indexed annual average direct
material costs and annual weighted-average conversion costs in the COP
and CV calculations. See Sales Analysis Memo--Wieland and Memorandum
from Ernest Gziryan to Neal Halper ``Cost of Production and Constructed
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Wieland-
Werke AG (Wieland),'' dated April 7, 2010 (Wieland Cost Calculation
Memo--Wieland).
Volatility in Raw Materials
Wieland explains that it offers three types of sales: single date
(release)
[[Page 18804]]
pricing, split date pricing, and tolling. See Section AQR at 34-35. In
its Section AQR, Wieland asserts that the volatility in daily commodity
metal prices experienced during the POR poses unique issues that the
Department's traditional antidumping methodology does not adequately
account for. For example, Wieland states that in the case of split
pricing sales in the home market, a U.S. sale with a metal fixation
date occuring on one date would be compared with home market sales in
which that metal fixation date falls, not only on a different date, but
also in completely different months (since metal fixation can occur
both before and after the fabrication order confirmation date). Wieland
states that customers in the United States and Germany that purchased
metal with the same metal fixation date will pay the same price for the
LME metal price component of their metal purchase. However, Wieland
asserts that if the price comparison is made such that sales with
different metal fixation dates are compared, margins will be
artificially created or masked simply because LME metal prices
fluctuate.
Wieland asserts that, because the LME metal price is a full pass
through to the customer, and is treated as such by Wieland both in its
sales and cost accounting, the Department should make a circumstance of
sale (COS) adjustment which adjusts for the price difference resulting
from differences in metal fixation dates between U.S. and home market
sales. More specifically, Wieland proposes that the Department adjust
all U.S. and Home Market sales prices by the LME metal price for the
alloy on the metal fixation date associated with the specific sale. In
its letter dated June 25, 2009, at 14, the Petitioners state that the
Department has never, to the best of its knowledge, adjusted metal
pricing components as a circumstance of sale. The Petitioners state
that if Wieland believes that changes in the prices of copper and zinc
during the POR were (1) Very significant, (2) related to long-term
changes and (3) that in and of themselves, (i.e., apart from other cost
factors), unduly changed total production costs, then the proper
methodological remedy might be a potential change in the temporal
structure of the cost of production. Id.
The Department does not find that a COS adjustment is warranted in
the instant review, because it is the Department's practice to limit
such adjustments to direct selling expenses. However, the Department
preliminarily finds that, based on the sales pricing structure reported
by Wieland and the volatility experienced in commodity metal prices in
this particular POR, the date of sale methodology and transaction-to-
average price comparisons may not adequately account for the volatility
in metal prices which occurred during the POR. Therefore, for these
preliminary results, we are accounting for the volatility in commodity
metal prices by ensuring that the home market sales selected for
comparison purposes will first be matched based on the invoice date as
the date of sale, and secondly, will have a metal fixation date in the
same month as the metal fixation date of the U.S. sale. Absent a metal
fixation date in the same month, we will make comparisons based on the
same quarter of the POR as the metal fixation date reported for
Wieland's U.S. sale. Absent such a match, we will use CV as the basis
for comparison to Wieland's U.S. sale. We find that by limiting the
comparisons to sales made within the same quarter of the POR and the
same month for the metal fixation date, we reasonably account for the
volatility experienced by Wieland during the POR associated with its
split date pricing structure, thereby, preventing potential distortions
in the Department's transaction-to-average price comparison
methodology.
1. Calculation of COP
Before making any comparisons to NV, we conducted a quarterly COP
analysis of Wieland pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act to determine
whether Wieland comparison market sales were made at prices below the
COP. We calculated the COP based on the sum of the cost of materials
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A
expenses and packing, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
2. Test of Comparison Market Prices
As required under section 773(b)(2) of the Act, we compared the
quarterly weighted-average COP to the per-unit price of the comparison
market sales of the foreign like product based on the metal fixation
date to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the
COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and
whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs
within a reasonable period of time. We determined the net comparison
market prices for the below-cost test by subtracting from the gross
unit price any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, direct
and indirect selling expenses (also subtracted from the COP), and
packing expenses. See Sales Analysis Memo--Wieland.
3. Results of COP Test
Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of
a given model were at prices below the COP, we did not disregard any
below-cost sales of that model because we determined that the below-
cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of the
respondent's home market sales of a given model were at prices less
than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost sales because: (1) they
were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial
quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the
Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the indexed POR
weighted-average COPs, they were at prices which would not permit the
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
Therefore, for Wieland, we disregarded below-cost sales of a given
product of 20 percent or more and used the remaining sales as the basis
for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
See Sales Analysis Memo--Wieland.
D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices
We calculated NV based on the reported delivery terms to comparison
market customers. We made deductions from the starting price, when
appropriate, for handling, loading, inland freight, warehousing, inland
insurance, discounts, and rebates. In accordance with sections
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we added U.S. packing costs and
deducted comparison market packing, respectively. In addition, we made
circumstance-of-sale adjustments for direct expenses, including imputed
credit expenses, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the
Act. Where appropriate, we added other revenue and applied billing
adjustments to the gross unit price.
When comparing U.S. sales with comparison market sales of similar,
but not identical, merchandise, we also made adjustments for physical
differences in the merchandise in accordance with section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We based this
adjustment on the difference in the variable cost of manufacture (VCOM)
for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, using weighted-
average costs.
[[Page 18805]]
E. Level of Trade
Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732
(November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). Consistent with 19 CFR
351.412, to determine whether comparison market sales were at a
different LOT than the U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated (or arm's-length) customers,
including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and
the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. If the comparison
market sales were at a different LOT and the differences affect price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we will make an LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Wieland reported that its U.S. sale and home market sales were made
at the same LOT. Wieland has two channels of distribution for U.S.
sales: (1) manufacture to order and ship directly to customer, and (2)
sales through Wieland Metals, Inc. The one sale occurring during the
POR was made through channel (1) to an end-user. Wieland reported that
during the POR, it sold subject merchandise through one channel of
distribution in both the U.S. and home market, which is direct to the
customer, to one customer category in the United States and three
customer categories in the home market, consisting of OEM/end users,
broker/distributors, and service center/slitting center.
Our analysis of the selling activities for Wieland shows that there
is overlap in these activities for channels of distribution and
customer categories. Wieland performs similar selling activities for
all customer categories and channels of distribution. Wieland reports
that its sales functions are basic services provided for all sales. For
example, every sale involves packing, order processing, the
salesperson's time, and logistics support. Furthermore, Wieland states
that its selling functions do not vary by type of customer. See Section
AQR at Section A-C SQR at SAC-7.
In the U.S. market, Wieland reported that its sale was made through
one channel of distribution to one customer category, and therefore, at
one LOT. The Department has determined that Wieland's home market sales
were made at one LOT and at the same stage of marketing as the U.S.
sales LOT. Therefore, the Department will not make an LOT adjustment
for Wieland's sale to the United States.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of these preliminary results, we made currency
conversions in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the
official exchange rates published by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average percentage margin exists for the period
March 1, 2008, through February 28, 2009, for Wieland:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG........................................... 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose the calculations performed for these
preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this
notice to the parties of this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c).
Pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act, the Department intends to verify
the information upon which we will rely in making our final
determination. As a result, we intend to establish the briefing
schedule upon the completion of verification.
Pursuant to section 751(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), the
Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results.
Assessment Rate
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an
assessment rate for each importer of the subject merchandise. Upon
issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any
importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are
above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will
issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping
duties on appropriate entries by applying the assessment rate to the
entered value of the merchandise. For assessment purposes, we
calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the subject
merchandise by aggregating the dumping margins for all U.S. sales to
each importer and dividing the amount by the total entered value of the
sales to that importer. Where appropriate, to calculate the entered
value, we subtracted international movement expenses (e.g.,
international freight) from the gross sales value.
The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on
May 6, 2003 (68 FR 23954). This clarification will apply to entries of
subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in
these preliminary results of review for which the reviewed companies
did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. In
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at
the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this
clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
Cash Deposit Requirements
To calculate the cash deposit rate for Wieland, we divided its
total dumping margin by the total net value of its sales during the
review period. The following deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of BSS from Germany entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for companies
subject to this review will be the rate established in the final
results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent
and, therefore, de minimis, no cash deposit will be required; (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 final results for a review in which that
manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a
firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash
deposit rate
[[Page 18806]]
will be the rate established for the most recent final results 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 7.30
percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. See
Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Federal Republic
of Germany, 52 FR 6997 (March 6, 1987), amended at 52 FR 35750
(September 23, 1987). These cash deposit requirements, when imposed,
shall remain in effect until further notice.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 increase the
subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of
antidumping duties reimbursed.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: April 7, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-8419 Filed 4-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P