[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67658-67662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32538]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-401-040]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Stainless Steel Plate
From Sweden
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: stainless
steel plate from Sweden.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 3, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review (63 FR 41227) of the
antidumping finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On
the basis of a notice of intent to participate filed on behalf of the
domestic industry and substantive comments filed on behalf of the
domestic industry and a respondent interested party, the Department
determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result of this review,
the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping finding would
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the
levels indicated in the Magnitude of the Margin section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner,
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202)
482-1560, respectively.
Effective Date: December 8, 1998.
Statute and Regulations
This review was 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''). Guidance on methodological
or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset
reviews is set forth in the
[[Page 67659]]
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 subject to this antidumping finding is stainless
steel plate from Sweden, which is commonly used in scientific and
industrial equipment because of its resistance to staining, rusting and
pitting. Stainless steel plate is classified under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7219.11.00.00,
7219.12.00.05, 7219.12.00.15, 7219.12.00.45, 7219.12.00.65,
7219.12.00.70, 7219.12.00.80, 7219.21.00.05, 7219.21.00.50,
7219.22.00.05, 7219.22.00.10, 7219.22.00.30, 7219.22.00.60,
7219.31.00.10, 7219.31.00.50, 7220.11.00.00, 7222.30.00.00, and
7228.40.00.00. Although the subheading is provided for convenience and
customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise remains
dispositive.
On July 11, 1995, the Department determined that Stavax ESR
(Stavax), UHB Ramax (Ramax), and UHB 904L (904L) when flat-rolled are
within the scope of antidumping finding. On November 3, 1995, the
Department determined that stainless steel plate products Stavax,
Ramax, and 904L when forged, are within the scope of the antidumping
finding. On December 30, 1997, the Department determined that
merchandise rolled into hot bands in Sweden from British slabs is
subject to the finding.
This review covers all known manufacturers and exporters of
stainless steel plate from Sweden.
Background
On August 3, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden (63 FR 41227)
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. We received a Notice of Intent
to Participate from the Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Armco, Inc., J&L
Specialty Steel, Inc., G.O. Carlson, Inc., and Bethlehem Lukens Plate
(collectively ``the petitioners'') within the applicable deadline
(August 18, 1998) specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i)) of the Sunset
Regulations. The petitioners claimed interested party status under
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic manufacturers of the subject
merchandise. We received timely and complete substantive responses to
the notice of initiation on September 2, 1998, on behalf of the
petitioners and one respondent interested party, Uddeholm Tooling AB,
and their American subsidiary, Bohler-Uddeholm Corporation
(``Uddeholm''). Uddeholm claimed interested party status under section
771(9)(A) of the Act, as a foreign manufacturer and exporter of the
subject merchandise. We received a waiver of participation from the
other known Swedish manufacturer of stainless steel plate, Avesta
Sheffield AB, and their American subsidiary, Avesta Sheffield NAD
(``Avesta'').
Using the value of exports information submitted by Uddeholm and
the value of imports as reported by the United States Customs Service
in its annual reports to Congress on administration of the antidumping
and countervailing duty laws,1 the Department determined
that exports by Uddeholm accounted for significantly less than 50
percent of the value of total exports of the subject merchandise over
the five calendar years preceding the initiation of the sunset review.
Therefore, on September 22, 1998, the Department determined that
respondent interested parties provided inadequate response to the
notice of initiation, and, the Department determined to conduct an
expedited review (see memo concerning adequacy of respondent's
submission dated September 22, 1998) in accordance with section
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Sunset Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This information is available to the public on the Internet
at ``http://www.ita.doc.gov/import__admin/ records/sunset''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) 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
finding and, shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail
if the finding is revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.
In addition, parties' comments with respect to 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.3.
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).
The antidumping finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden was
published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 73-157 (38 FR
15079, June 8, 1973). Since that time, the Department has conducted
several administrative reviews.2 The finding remains in
effect for all imports of stainless steel plate from Sweden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 47 FR 29867 (July 9, 1982);
Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 47 FR 41151 (September 17, 1982); Stainless
Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 49 FR 39885 (October 11, 1984); Stainless
Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 63 FR 1824 (January 11, 1998); Stainless
Steel Plate From Sweden: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 63 FR 8434 (February 19, 1998); and Stainless
Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 63 FR 63706 (November 16, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, the petitioners argued that the
actions taken by producers and exporters of Swedish stainless steel
plate during the life of the finding indicate that ``dumping will
[[Page 67660]]
continue in the event of revocation'' (see September 2, 1998,
Substantive Response of petitioners). With respect to whether dumping
continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the
finding, petitioners argued that, as documented in the final
determinations reached by the Department, dumping levels have
fluctuated during the life of the finding, with company-specific
margins ranging between 0 and 24.67 percent.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 47 FR 29867 (July 9, 1982);
Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 47 FR 41151 (September 17, 1982); Stainless
Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 49 FR 39885 (October 11, 1984); Stainless
Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 63 FR 1824 (January 11, 1998); Stainless
Steel Plate From Sweden: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 63 FR 8434 (February 19, 1998); and Stainless
Steel Plate From Sweden: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 63 FR 63706 (November 16, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased
after the issuance of the finding, the petitioners argued that imports
of the subject merchandise have fallen dramatically since the issuance
of the finding in 1973. Petitioners state that import volumes of the
subject merchandise in 1972 were 9,990 short tons and that imports fell
rapidly, reaching a low of 291 short tons in 1983 and remaining below
3,250 short tons up to the present, excluding a brief surge in 1996.
The petitioners stated, citing U.S. International Trade Commission
publications and U.S. Department of Commerce IM146 reports, that
imports of the subject merchandise fell dramatically since the issuance
of the finding increasing only in 1995, at which time petitioners began
requesting administrative reviews. Uddeholm does not dispute that
dumping is likely to continue.
In conclusion, the petitioners argued that the Department should
determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were
the finding revoked because dumping margins have fluctuated above de
minimis levels over the life of the finding, and because import volumes
of the subject merchandise have decreased sharply after the issuance of
the finding.
In its substantive response, Uddeholm stated that the likely
effects of revocation of the dumping finding are (1) no significant
change in the volume of Stavax and Ramax imports and (2) no significant
change in the price of Stavax and Ramax sold by Bohler-Uddeholm in the
United States.
Uddeholm did not address the fact that dumping margins above de
minimis continue to exist except to offer a calculated rate from the
1995-1996 administrative review as the dumping margin likely to prevail
if the finding were revoked. Uddeholm did address the question of
import volumes. It argues that much of the decrease in import volumes
after the early 1980's was do to a restructuring of the Swedish
stainless steel industry which resulted in Uddeholm discontinuing
exports of subject merchandise to the United States. Uddeholm claims
that the only products it exports to the United States covered by this
finding are Stavax and Ramax (See scope determination dated July 11,
1995). Only after the 1995 scope ruling did Uddeholm again participate
in administrative reviews. Furthermore, Uddeholm argues that the demand
for Stavax and Ramax is ``driven solely by the market economics of the
plastics molding industry'' (see Uddeholm's Substantive Response dated
September 2, 1998). Uddeholm stated that it did not anticipate any
significant increase or decrease in the imports and/or prices of Stavax
or Ramax if the Department revokes this finding.
In rebuttal, the petitioners argued that Uddeholm's product mix is
irrelevant and the rate from the first administrative review in which
Stavax and Ramax are included should not be considered ``the first rate
calculated.'' Petitioners cite that there is no statute, regulation, or
policy which permits consideration of a company's product mix in the
determination of a dumping margin.
We find that the existence of dumping margins above de minimis
levels and a reduction in export volumes over the life of the finding
is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping. As discussed in Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin,
the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, ``[i]f companies
continue to dump with the discipline of the order in place, it is
reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the discipline were
removed.'' Therefore, given that dumping margins continued after the
issuance of the finding, and absent argument and evidence to the
contrary, the Department, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin, determines that dumping is likely to continue if the
finding were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin the Department stated that, in a
sunset review of an antidumping finding for which no company-specific
margin or all others rate is included in the Treasury finding published
in the Federal Register, the Department normally will provide to the
Commission the company-specific margin from the first final results of
administrative review published in the Federal Register by the
Department. Additionally, if the first final results do not contain a
margin for a particular company, the Department normally will provide
the Commission, as the margin for that company, the first ``new
shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding. (See
section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Exceptions to this
policy include the use of a more recently calculated margin, as
appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption determinations. (See
section II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
Because Treasury did not publish the weighted-average dumping
margins in this finding, the margins determined in the original
investigation are not available to the Department for use in this
sunset review. Therefore, the Department normally will select the
margin from the first administrative review conducted by the Department
as the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the
finding is revoked. For any company not covered in the first
administrative review, the Department will provide to the Commission
the first ``new shipper'' rate established for that finding. The
Department received a request for a duty absorption determination in
the ongoing administrative review covering 1996-1997, however, the
Department has not issued a final determination in that review.
In its substantive comments, the petitioners argue that the
Department should select the highest company-specific margins from the
final results of the most recently completed administrative reviews.
For Uddeholm, the petitioners argue that the Department should use the
final rate from the 1996-1997 administrative review, unless that rate
is lower than Uddeholm's highest rate otherwise in this case.
In its substantive response, Uddeholm argues that the Department
should select the margin calculated in the 1995-1996 administrative
review as the rate likely to prevail if the Department were to revoke
the finding (see Uddeholm's Substantive Response dated September 2,
1998). Uddeholm claims that, between the early 1980's and 1995, it did
not export any products covered by this finding to the United States.
Only after the July 11, 1995 scope clarification, in which the
Department clarified that Stavax and
[[Page 67661]]
Ramax were within the scope of the finding, did Uddeholm again export
subject merchandise to the United States. Because of the restructuring
of the Swedish stainless steel industry and its long absence from the
exportation of subject merchandise, Uddeholm argues that the first
calculated rate after the inclusion of Stavax and Ramax is the ``first
dumping margin established for these products'' (see Uddeholm's
Substantive Response dated September 2, 1998).
In rebuttal, petitioners argue that product mix should be
irrelevant in the Department's choice of margins. The petitioners state
that the restructuring of the Swedish stainless steel industry and the
inclusion of Stavax and Ramax into the scope of the order should have
no bearing on the Department's margin decision. Furthermore, Uddeholm
has not confirmed the variation in product mix with any specific or
convincing facts. According to petitioners, Uddeholm's data simply
demonstrate that its ``volumes and values of imports of subject
merchandise into the United States fluctuate and are not stable'' (see
Petitioner's Rebuttal Comments dated September 11, 1998).
The Department disagrees with the petitioners in part. In the
Sunset Policy Bulletin the Department stated that ``a company may
choose to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase market
share'' and that ``the Department may, in response to an argument from
an interested party, provide to the Commission a more recently
calculated margin for a particular company, where, for that particular
company, dumping margins increased after the issuance of the order.''
(See section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) The Department's
intent was to establish a policy of using the original investigation
margin as a starting point, thus providing interested parties the
opportunity and incentive to come forward with data which would support
a different estimate. With respect to Uddeholm, the Department finds
the petitioners' argument of choosing the highest margin calculated
unpersuasive because the increase in imports of stainless steel plate
from Sweden did not correspond to an increase in Uddeholm's dumping
margin. In fact, during the initial surge in imports in 1995,
Uddeholm's dumping margin decreased from 4.46 to 2.95 percent.
As for the alternative choice of the most recent margins, the
Department again disagrees with the petitioners. The petitioners argue
that, according to the Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin, if the
original finding by the Treasury Department does not supply a margin,
``the Department normally will provide the Commission the company-
specific margin from the first final results of administrative review
published in the Federal Register by the Department'' Sunset Policy
Bulletin (63 FR 18873). However, ``the Department may * * * provide to
the Commission a more recently calculated margin for a particular
company where, for that particular company, dumping margins increased
after the issuance of the order'' Sunset Policy Bulletin (63 FR 18873).
The petitioners argue that both Uddeholm and Avesta have accelerated
their rates of dumping considerably over the life of the finding and,
therefore, the Department should report to the Commission a more
recently calculated rate. With respect to Uddeholm, there has been no
consistent pattern of increasing margins. Excluding the most recent
administrative review, Uddeholm's margins have decreased since June
1980.
With respect to the petitioners' rebuttal comments, the Department
agrees with the petitioners' objection to the 1995-1996 administrative
review being considered the ``first calculated rate'' for Uddeholm. In
essence, Uddeholm is arguing that the Department view this finding as
two separate findings; the first covering material under the original
scope of the finding and the second covering Stavax and Ramax, as
incorporated into the scope of the finding by the July 11, 1995 scope
clarification. Uddeholm is arguing, for the purposes of margin
selection, that the Department ignore the margins calculated prior to
1995 in this finding. Scope clarification decisions are meant to
clarify what products are covered by the scope of a particular finding;
they are not intended to be viewed as new findings in and of
themselves. The Department believes that a review of the entire margin
history of the finding is essential for understanding a company's
behavior with the discipline of the finding in place. Therefore, the
Department finds little basis for Uddeholm's assertion that the margin
from the 1995-1996 administrative review is the de facto first rate
calculated for this finding.
As for the choice of the 2.95 percent as the margin likely to
prevail if the finding were revoked, the Department disagrees with
Uddeholm. First, Uddeholm has provided little or no evidence to support
their assertions of a restructuring of the Swedish stainless steel
industry, the basis for its suggestion of the 2.95 percent margin.
Without such evidence, the Department has no reason to believe that
Uddeholm's decrease in exportation during the 1980's and early 1990's
was not attributable to its inability to sell subject merchandise in
the United States without dumping. Second, other than its assertion
that the 2.95 percent rate is the de facto first margin calculated, an
assertion that the Department finds invalid, Uddeholm has offered no
other reason why the Department should report this rate to the
Commission. Lastly, Uddeholm has demonstrated a willingness to dump
subject merchandise above a de minimis level in the United States,
regardless of the type of subject merchandise or the structure of the
Swedish stainless steel market as evidenced by the entire margin
history of this finding.
With respect to Avesta, the petitioners argue, in their substantive
response, that the Department should select the highest company-
specific margin from the final results of the most recently completed
administrative review. However, in its rebuttal comments, the
petitioners argue, based on Avesta's waiver of participation, that the
Department should select the highest margin found in any segment of
this proceeding for Avesta. The highest margin calculated for Avesta is
24.67 percent, a rate determined in the 1995-1996 administrative review
(63 FR 1834, February 19, 1998).
The Department disagrees with the petitioners, in part, regarding
the choice of the highest margin calculated during the life of the
finding as the rate to report to the Commission for Avesta. The
Department disagrees that a waiver of participation is sufficient cause
for the Department to select the highest margin calculated. In fact,
both the statute and the regulations provide that respondent interested
parties may waive participation in a sunset review before the
Department with the intent of reducing the burden on all parties.
Waiving participation before the Department does not, therefore, result
in the use of an adverse inference by the Department.
However, the Department does agree with petitioners' comments that
the 24.67 percent rate calculated in the 1995-1996 administrative
review should be for used for Avesta. As noted above, in the Sunset
Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that ``a company may choose to
increase dumping in order to maintain or increase market share'' and
that ``the Department may, in response to an argument from an
interested party, provide to the Commission a more recently calculated
margin for a particular company, where, for that particular company,
dumping margins increased after the issuance of the
[[Page 67662]]
order.'' (See section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) The
Department finds that the recent surge in import volumes of subject
merchandise in 1995 and 1996 accompanied by the dramatic increase in
dumping margins by Avesta is sufficient cause for the Department to
select a more recently calculated margin in this case.
In conclusion, consistent with the policy, we determine that the
5.22 percent rate, the first ``new shipper's'' rate calculated by the
Department is probative of the behavior of Uddeholm. With respect to
Avesta, the Department determines that a more recently calculated
margin is probative of the behavior of Avesta if the finding were to be
revoked.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avesta....................................................... 24.67
Uddeholm..................................................... 5.22
All Others................................................... 5.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations.
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable
violation.
This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-32538 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
