[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