00-284. Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Mechanical Transfer Presses From Japan  

  • [Federal Register Volume 65, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2000)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 753-758]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 00-284]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [A-588-810]
    
    
    Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Mechanical Transfer 
    Presses From Japan
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: Mechanical 
    transfer presses from Japan.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
    Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
    on mechanical transfer presses (``MTPs'') from Japan pursuant to 
    section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
    
    [[Page 754]]
    
    Act''). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and adequate 
    substantive response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party, 
    and inadequate response from respondent interested parties, the 
    Department determined to conduct an expedited sunset review. However, 
    upon reconsideration of our initial adequacy determination, the 
    Department determines that it is appropriate in this case to conduct a 
    full review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily 
    finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to 
    lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated 
    in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. 
    Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
    Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & 
    Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050 
    or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 2000.
    
    Statute and Regulations
    
        This review is being conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 
    of the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset 
    reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year 
    (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 
    FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations'') and 19 CFR Part 351 
    (1999) in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues 
    relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in 
    the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct 
    of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing 
    Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset 
    Policy Bulletin'').
    
    Scope
    
        The merchandise covered by this order is MTPs from Japan. The term 
    ``mechanical transfer press'' refers to automatic metal-forming machine 
    tools with multiple die stations in which the workpiece is moved from 
    station to station by a transfer mechanism designed as an integral part 
    of the press and synchronized with the press action, whether imported 
    as machines or parts suitable for use solely or principally with these 
    machines. These presses may be assembled or unassembled. Spare and 
    replacement parts are outside the scope of the order (see Notice of 
    Scope Rulings, 57 FR 19602 (May 7, 1992)). A destack sheet feeder 
    designed to be used with a mechanical transfer press is an accessory 
    and, therefore, is not within the scope of the order (see Notice of 
    Scope Rulings, 57 FR 32973 (July 24, 1992)). The FMX cold forging press 
    is within the scope of the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 59 FR 
    8910 (February 24, 1994)). Finally, certain mechanical transfer press 
    parts exported from Japan are outside the scope of the order (see 
    Notice of Scope Rulings, 62 FR 9176 (February 28, 1997)). This 
    merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
    (``HTS'') item numbers 8462.99.0035 and 8466.94.5040. The HTS item 
    numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written 
    description remains dispositive.
    
    History of the Order
    
        On January 4, 1990, the Department issued a final determination of 
    sales at less than fair value on imports of MTPs from 
    Japan.1 On February 16, 1990, the antidumping duty order on 
    the subject merchandise was published in the Federal 
    Register.2
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ See MTPs From Japan; Final Determination of Sales at Less 
    Than Fair Value, 55 FR 335 (January 4, 1990).
        \2\ See MTPs From Japan; Antidumping Duty Order, 55 FR 5642 
    (February 16, 1990).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In the antidumping duty order the Department established an 
    estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 15.16 percent for Komatsu 
    Ltd, 7.49 percent for Aida Engineering, Ltd. (``Aida''), and an ``all 
    others'' rate of 14.51 percent. Id. There have been six administrative 
    reviews of this order, and no investigations of duty absorption by the 
    Department.
        The order remains in effect for all producers and exporters of MTPs 
    from Japan, except for Aida for which the Department revoked the 
    antidumping duty order.3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ See MTPs From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty 
    Administrative Order in Part, 63 FR 37331 (July 10, 1998).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Background
    
        On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
    antidumping duty order on MTPs from Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of 
    the Act. On June 16, 1999 we received a Notice of Intent to Participate 
    on behalf of Verson Division of Allied Products Corporation 
    (``Verson''), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) 
    of the Sunset Regulations. We received a complete substantive response 
    on July 1, 1999 from Verson, within the deadline specified in section 
    351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Verson claimed interested 
    party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. manufacturer 
    of a domestic like product and stated it was the petitioner in the 
    original investigation.
        We received complete substantive responses from respondent 
    interested parties, Komatsu, Ltd. (``Komatsu''), Hitachi Zosen 
    Corporation (``HZ'') and Fukui Machinery Co., (``Fukui'') (collectively 
    ``the respondents''). Komatsu, HZ, and Fukui claimed interested party 
    status as manufacturers and exporters of MTPs under section 771(9)(A) 
    of the Act. Komatsu maintains that it was a respondent interested party 
    in the original investigation and has participated in two of six 
    subsequent administrative reviews conducted by the Department. Komatsu 
    further notes that it is participating in the 1998-1999 administrative 
    review that the Department is currently conducting. HZ and Fukui state 
    that they did not participate in the original investigation; however, 
    HZ states that it has participated in four of six subsequent 
    administrative reviews and Fukui has participated in one administrative 
    review.
        On July 12, 1999, we received comments from Verson requesting that 
    the Department determine that the individual respondent interested 
    party responses to the notice of initiation are inadequate with regard 
    to respondent interested parties as a whole. Verson argued, therefore, 
    that an expedited review was appropriate. The regulations provide, at 
    section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), that the Secretary normally will conclude 
    that respondent interested parties have provided adequate response to a 
    notice of initiation where it receives complete substantive responses 
    from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 
    50 percent, on a volume basis (or value basis, if appropriate) of the 
    total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the 
    five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of 
    initiation. In their substantive responses, the respondents provided 
    the Department statistics on export volume and value of MTPs for the 
    time period 1994 through 1998. After examining the statistical 
    information, the Department concluded that it did not receive adequate 
    response to the notice of initiation from respondent interested 
    parties. As a result, pursuant to the regulations, on July 21, 1999, 
    the Department determined to conduct an expedited sunset review of this 
    order 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C).
    
    [[Page 755]]
    
        In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
    Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
    review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
    1995). Therefore, on October 12, 1999 , the Department determined that 
    the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on MTPs from Japan is 
    extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion 
    of the final results of this review until not later than December 28, 
    1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.4
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \4\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
    Reviews, 64 FR 5523 (October 12, 1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Adequacy
    
        As noted above, on July 21, 1999, the Department determined that, 
    during the five-year period from 1994 to 1998, the average annual 
    percentage of the respondents' exports of MPTs to the United States 
    with respect to the total subject merchandise exports to the United 
    States falls significantly below the 50 percent threshold that the 
    Department normally will consider to be an adequate foreign response. 
    In light of the fact that, on July 10, 1998, the order was revoked with 
    respect to Aida, our reliance on total imports during that time 
    resulted in an underestimation of the percent of exports accounted for 
    by respondent interested parties. Although, absent Aida-specific export 
    statistics, we are unable to determine the exact percentage of subject 
    merchandise exports accounted for by respondent interested parties, 
    given Aida's historic participation in administrative reviews, 
    including our finding that Aida had exported in commercial quantities 
    over a three consecutive year period, we determine that the respondent 
    interested parties account for a significantly greater percent of 
    exports of subject merchandise than we had originally estimated and, 
    therefore, that respondent interested parties may account for more than 
    the 50 percent threshold that the Department applies in its adequacy 
    determinations. Additionally, interested parties have raised 
    significant issues in their submissions with respect to the significant 
    decline in import volumes and the unique nature of the market such that 
    the Department believes it is appropriate to conduct a full review and 
    allow submission of additional data.
    
    Determination
    
        In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is 
    conducting this review to determine whether revocation of the 
    antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
    of dumping. Section 752(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in making this 
    determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average 
    dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews 
    and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period 
    before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping order. 
    Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide 
    to the International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the 
    magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is 
    revoked.
        The Department's preliminary determinations concerning continuation 
    or recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed 
    below. In addition, interested parties comments with respect to the 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin 
    are addressed within the respective sections below.
    
    Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping
    
        Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history 
    accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically 
    the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 
    103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt. 1 
    (1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the 
    Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on 
    methodological and analytical issues, including the basis for 
    likelihood determinations. The Department clarified that determinations 
    of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2 
    of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally 
    will determine that revocation of an antidumping order is likely to 
    lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping where: (a) Dumping 
    continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the 
    order, (b) imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance 
    of the order, or (c) dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the 
    order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined 
    significantly (see section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
        In its substantive response, Verson argues that revocation of the 
    antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence 
    of dumping by Japanese producers and exporters of MTPs. Verson 
    maintains that the history of this order (i.e., the administrative 
    review history) demonstrates that since the issuance of the order, 
    respondents have not been able, on a continuous basis, to sell MTPs in 
    the United States at fair value.
        Verson argues that section 752(c)(1) of the Act instructs the 
    Department to consider not only the weighted-average dumping margins 
    determined in the original investigation and subsequent reviews but 
    also the volume of imports for the period before and the period after 
    the issuance of the order. Verson contends that since the issuance of 
    the order, only one company (Aida) has made sales to the U.S. at not 
    less than fair value over a consecutive three year period. Verson 
    asserts that although since the issuance of the order, imports of MTPs 
    from Japan have remained relatively stable, during many of the 
    administrative reviews conducted by the Department, several Japanese 
    producers have reported ``no sales.'' In conclusion, Verson argues that 
    a decline in import volume after the issuance of the order coupled with 
    the continuation of dumping margins above de minimis is probative of 
    the fact that producers and exporters of MTPs from Japan will continue 
    to dump if the order is revoked. For these reasons, Verson maintains 
    that the Department should determine that there is a likelihood of the 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping of MTPs from Japan if the order 
    is revoked.
        In their substantive responses, the respondent interested parties 
    argue that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to the 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping. Komatsu argues that, with the 
    exception of small dumping margins found in early reviews of Aida (a 
    company for which the order has subsequently been revoked), in every 
    single review the Department has found no dumping. Further, according 
    to Komatsu, it is unlikely that this situation will change if the order 
    is revoked. Komatsu argues that the original dumping finding was the 
    result of a unique historical situation. Specifically, Komatsu argues 
    that the mid-1980s saw unprecedented boom in demand for MTPs, with U.S. 
    automakers retooling to compete with Japanese automakers and with 
    Japanese automakers establishing transplant manufacturing operations in 
    the United States. Komatsu asserts that once this process was completed 
    in the late 1980s, there was a sharp drop in demand and since that 
    time, the U.S. market for MTPs has been characterized by relatively few 
    sales either for replacement of existing machines, or to supply the 
    relatively few new automobile manufacturing plants that
    
    [[Page 756]]
    
    have been built. Further, Komatsu asserts that as the MTP market has 
    matured to more of a replacement market, a new dynamic has been created 
    in which the number of bidders considered for each purchase has been 
    reduced. This fundamental change in the nature of competition, Komatsu 
    argues, has reduced the degree of competition and led to findings by 
    the Department in all of its administrative reviews that the Japanese 
    manufacturers subject to the order have not engaged in dumping.
        HZ and Fukui note that in making determinations of likelihood of 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping, the statute requires the 
    Department to consider the weighted-average dumping margins determined 
    in the investigation and subsequent reviews and the volume of imports 
    of the subject merchandise for the period before and the period after 
    the issuance of the antidumping duty order. However, citing to the SAA, 
    at 890, they assert that the Department recognizes that observed 
    patterns regarding dumping margins and import volumes are not 
    necessarily indicative of the likelihood of dumping. Further, HZ and 
    Fukui assert that, in this case, good cause exists sufficient to 
    warrant that the Department consider factors other than import volume 
    in determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order is 
    likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of sales at less than 
    normal value. Citing to the Commission's final report in the original 
    investigation, HZ and Fukui argue that MTPs are big-ticket, made-to-
    order products, with relatively low and irregular sales volumes, and 
    with peak sales occurring as the presses reach the end of their useful 
    life of nearly 20 years. Similar to the arguments of Komatsu, HZ and 
    Fukui argue that the late 1980s witnessed an unexpected increase in 
    U.S. demand for MTPs which resulted in an increase in the importation 
    of foreign made presses, including presses from Italy, the United 
    Kingdom, and Japan. Further, as demand slackened in the late 1980s and 
    early 1990s, so too did imports, with imports from foreign countries 
    generally, and Japan in particular, declining significantly. This 
    trough in the business cycle has lasted throughout the 1990s and, HZ 
    and Fukui assert that it is expected to continue for another five to 
    eight years. HZ and Fukui argue that, accordingly, any comparison 
    between shipments prior to the imposition of the order and following 
    the imposition of the order would be meaningless because the import 
    levels from all producers declined, whether they were found to be 
    dumping or not.
        HZ and Fukui go on to assert that the extreme cyclical nature of 
    the MTP market constitutes ``good cause'' for the Department to 
    consider price, cost, market, and other economic factors in determining 
    whether revocation of the order is likely to lead to continuation or 
    recurrence of dumping. An examination of those factors, HZ and Fukui 
    argue, will reveal that revocation of the order will not likely lead to 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping.
        We did not receive rebuttal from Verson or Komatsu. In their 
    rebuttal comments, HZ and Fukui 5 reiterate their arguments 
    that there is no likelihood that revocation of the order will result in 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping. Again, HZ and Fukui assert that 
    comparison of the pre- and post-order export volumes does not provide a 
    valid measure of likelihood of dumping. They argue that the presumption 
    that a post-order decline in shipment volumes indicates the foreign 
    producer's inability to move the pre- order volumes without dumping 
    does not apply to big-ticket items such as MTPs given that MTPs are 
    unique pieces of machinery always are manufactured to exacting customer 
    specifications, with extremely long useful lives, and sporadic sales. 
    Additionally, citing to the July 1, 1999, substantive response of 
    Verson, at page 10, they assert that Verson acknowledges that the lack 
    of sales following the imposition of the order is closely correlated to 
    the nature of the marketplace which is characterized by a very limited 
    number of high value transactions. HZ and Fukui further assert that, in 
    the original investigation, Verson argued that it was the unique nature 
    of the market, with sporadic sales, that caused injury to the domestic 
    industry. Therefore, Verson cannot now assert that respondents' 
    sporadic sales following the imposition of the order demonstrate an 
    inability to sell in the United States at fair value.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \5\ In their rebuttal comments, HZ and Fukui announced a name 
    change for Fukui, pursuant to a resolution of the shareholders. 
    Fukui was formerly known as ``Fukui Machinery Co., Ltd.'' The name 
    change took effect on July 1, 1999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        HZ and Fukui also take issue with Verson's argument that only one 
    Japanese respondent has made sales for three years in a row without 
    dumping. HZ and Fukui assert that the entire sales process from initial 
    bid to delivery can take in excess of two years and, as a result, sales 
    are infrequent and rarely occur in two consecutive years, let alone 
    three. Further, HZ and Fukui assert that because the MTPs manufactured 
    by Aida have more diverse applications and tend to be smaller than 
    those manufactured by other Japanese respondents, these sales occur 
    more frequently, thus enabling Aida to take advantage of the 
    Department's policy allowing for revocation of the order for sales made 
    three years in a row without dumping. In summary, HZ and Fukui argue 
    that because of the unique nature of the market for MTPs, the 
    Department's analysis of pre- and post-order import levels will not 
    provide a reliable indicator of the likelihood of HZ and Fukui's 
    resumption of dumping.
        As noted above, in determining whether revocation of an order is 
    likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Department 
    considers the margins determined in the investigation and subsequent 
    administrative reviews and the volume of imports for the period before 
    and the period after the issuance of the order. In the original 
    investigation, the Department estimated the margin of dumping for 
    Komatsu at 15.16 percent, for Aida at 7.49 percent, and for ``all 
    others'' at 14.51 percent. Although Aida was found to be dumping in the 
    second and third administrative review, at rates of 0.87 percent and 
    3.51 percent, respectively, we subsequently revoked the order with 
    respect to Aida (63 FR 37311 (July 11, 1998)) based on our 
    determination that Aida subsequently made sales to the United States 
    for three consecutive years without dumping.
        Verson argues that margins above de minimis continue to exist. 
    However, other than the post-investigation margins found for sales by 
    Aida, for which the order has been revoked, the Department has found 
    only zero margins for all of the Japanese respondents for which an 
    administrative review has been conducted. With the exception of 
    possible imports subject to the ``all others'' rate, dumping by the 
    respondents Komatsu, HZ, and Fukui (as well as Ishikawajima-Harima 
    Heavy Industry) has been eliminated since the issuance of the order. 
    Our review of the public versions of Customs' annual reports to 
    Congress on its administration of the antidumping and countervailing 
    duty statutes indicates that no bonds have been posted on entries 
    subject to this order since October 1, 1992. Therefore, the existence 
    of an above de minimis all others rate is not controlling in this 
    sunset review.
        Verson also argues that none of the Japanese producers/exporters 
    that remain subject to the order have made sales above fair value for a 
    period of three consecutive years. However, three consecutive years of 
    sales above fair value is the revocation standard in
    
    [[Page 757]]
    
    administrative reviews conducted under section 351.222 of the 
    regulations and is not controlling in this sunset review.
        As noted in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department normally 
    will determine that revocation of an order is likely to lead to 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping where dumping was eliminated 
    after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject 
    merchandise declined significantly. In their substantive and rebuttal 
    comments, the respondents argue that, given the nature of the MTP 
    market, the Department's reliance on the decrease between pre- and 
    post-order export volumes as a basis for a determination that dumping 
    would be likely to continue or recur would be inappropriate in this 
    case. Although Verson did not provide any rebuttal to these arguments, 
    respondents have not supported their assertions by placing facts or 
    some sort of documentary evidence on the record. In essence, the 
    respondents are claiming that the U.S. market for MTPs has shrunk 
    without providing any support for this claim. While we agree with 
    respondents that the Department has the discretion to deviate from its 
    stated policies where the facts warrant such deviation, respondents 
    have not provided any evidence to support their claims.
        While the respondents provided argument that would suggest an 
    explanation for the significant decrease in imports after the 
    imposition of the order, given the absence of evidence with respect to 
    pre- and post-order market share, we are not persuaded at this point 
    that it is appropriate to deviate from our stated policy in this case. 
    However, as indicated below, the Department is providing an opportunity 
    for interested parties who have filed substantive responses in this 
    review to provide additional factual evidence and arguments on this 
    issue.
        In sum, although we have determined that the level of respondents 
    participation warrants a full review, we note the existence of 
    additional producers/exporters that have waived their right to 
    participate in this review, which under the statute constitutes grounds 
    for finding likelihood (See section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act). 
    Therefore, we preliminarily determine that revocation of the order 
    would likely result in continuation or recurrence of dumping.
    
    Magnitude of the Margin
    
        In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
    consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department will provide 
    to the Commission the company-specific margins from the investigation 
    because that is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of 
    exporters without the discipline of an order. Further, for companies 
    not specifically investigated, or for companies that did not begin 
    shipping until after the order was issued, the Department normally will 
    provide a margin based on the all others rate from the investigation. 
    (See section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Exceptions to this 
    policy include the use of a more recently calculated margin, where 
    appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption determinations. (See 
    sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)
        As stated in the ``History of the Order'' section of this notice, 
    the Department published a weighted-average dumping margin in the 
    original investigation of 15.16 percent for Komatsu Ltd, 7.49 percent 
    for Aida Engineering, Ltd., and of 14.51 percent for ``all others.''
        In its substantive response, Verson cites to the Sunset Policy 
    Bulletin and asserts that the Department makes clear that the magnitude 
    of the margin of dumping in most cases is to be the company-specific 
    rate from the original investigation, as that margin best reflects the 
    behavior of the respondents free of the constraints of an antidumping 
    duty order. Verson argues that, accordingly, the Department should 
    report to the Commission the rates for Komatsu and ``all others'' from 
    the original investigation as the magnitude of the margin likely to 
    prevail if the antidumping duty order is revoked.
        In their substantive responses, the respondents argue that a zero 
    rate will likely prevail if the order on MTPs is revoked. Komatsu 
    argues that, throughout the history of this order, the Department has 
    consistently found no dumping by Komatsu and the other Japanese 
    exporters. Therefore, the dumping margin for Komatsu and others will be 
    zero should the order be revoked.
        HZ and Fukui assert that the Department may, and in this case 
    should, provide the Commission with a margin other than from the 
    original investigation. In support of their argument that the 
    Department select a margin other than the ``all others'' rate from the 
    original investigation as representative of the magnitude of the margin 
    likely to prevail with respect to their exports, HZ and Fukui argue 
    that the ``all others'' rate from the investigation represents the 
    weighted-average of the two companies subject to the original 
    investigation and does not include HZ and Fukui sales. Furthermore, HZ 
    and Fukui contend that they have received a zero margin in all their 
    administrative reviews conducted by the Department. In conclusion, they 
    argue that the ``all others'' rate of 14.51 percent is not 
    representative of the rate likely to prevail if the order is revoked.
        We agree with HZ and Fukui that the Department has the discretion 
    to report a company-specific margin for a company that did not 
    participate in the original investigation where, as in the Final 
    Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Steel Wire Rope From the Republic 
    of Korea, 64 FR 42166 (August 9, 1999), where we deviated from our 
    policy with respect to the use of the ``all others'' rate for Kumho, a 
    company not subject to the original investigation. However, in that 
    review, a case that did not involve declining import volumes, we noted 
    that although Kumho did not participate in the Department's original 
    investigation, Kumho had participated in each of the administrative 
    reviews and maintained a zero or de minimis margin over the life of the 
    order. While we do not believe that participation in each review is 
    necessary, as noted below, we preliminarily determine that use of a 
    more recently calculated rate is not appropriate in this review.
        In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department noted that it may, in 
    response to an argument from an interested party, provide the 
    Commission a more recently calculated rate for a particular company 
    where, for that particular company, dumping margins declined or dumping 
    was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import volumes 
    remained steady or increased. Further, in analyzing import volumes, the 
    Department normally will consider the company's relative market share, 
    with such information to be provided by the parties. In this review, 
    the respondents have made arguments that post-order export volumes, 
    although significantly decreased from pre-order import volumes, 
    nonetheless provide sufficient support for a determination that more 
    recently calculated margins are probative of their behavior without the 
    discipline of the order. For the reasons stated above, we preliminarily 
    determine that the respondent interested parties' assertions have not 
    been supported by any evidence. specifically, in this review,the 
    Department believes it more appropriate to base a determination with 
    respect to the use of a more recently calculated margin on evidence 
    regarding market share; such evidence currently is not on the record. 
    Therefore, absent evidence that the respondents have maintained or
    
    [[Page 758]]
    
    increased market share while eliminating dumping, we preliminarily 
    determine that the margins from the original investigation are 
    probative of the behavior of exporter without the discipline of the 
    order.
        Based on the above analysis, we preliminarily intend to report to 
    the Commission the margins contained in the Preliminary Results of 
    Review of this notice.
    
    Preliminary Results of Review
    
        As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that 
    revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below.
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Margin
                       Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Komatsu, Ltd. (Komatsu)....................................        15.16
    Aida Engineering, Ltd......................................        (\1\)
    All Others.................................................       14.51
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Revoked.
    
        Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
    publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
    hearing, if requested will be held on February 16, 2000, in accordance 
    with 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
    later than February 7, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 
    351.309(c)(1)(i). We invite interested parties to submit arguments and, 
    as an exception to our normal practice, factual evidence related to the 
    issues identified in these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs, which 
    must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
    later than February 14, 2000. Rebuttal briefs also may contain factual 
    evidence to rebut, clarify, or correct factual evidence submitted in 
    other parties' case briefs. The Department will issue a notice of final 
    results of this sunset review no later than April 26, 2000.
        This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
    with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
    
        Dated: December 28, 1999.
    Holly Kuga,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 00-284 Filed 1-5-00; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
1/6/2000
Published:
01/06/2000
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: Mechanical transfer presses from Japan.
Document Number:
00-284
Dates:
January 6, 2000.
Pages:
753-758 (6 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-588-810
PDF File:
00-284.pdf