00-4617. Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker From Mexico; Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: gray portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico.

SUMMARY:

On August 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico (64 FR 41915) 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 domestic interested parties and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

February 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eun W. Cho or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: [phone] or [phone], respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department 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).

Background

On August 2, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico (64 FR 41915). We invited parties to comment. On the basis of a notice of intent to participate filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full sunset review. The Department is conducting this sunset review in accordance with sections 751 and 752 of the Act.

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). This antidumping duty order on cement is a transition order. Therefore, on November 30, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement from Mexico is extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary result of this review until not later than February 18, 2000, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. ^[1]

Scope of Review

The products covered by this order include gray portland cement and clinker (“portland cement”) from Mexico. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than of being ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 2523.29 and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 2523.10. Gray portland cement has also been entered under HTS item number 2523.90 as other hydraulic cements. In its only scope ruling, the Department determined that masonry cement is not within the scope of the order. ^[2] The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. Our written description of the scope of the proceeding is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in substantive responses and rebuttals by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum (“Decision Memo”) from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 18, 2000, which is hereby adopted and incorporated by reference into this notice. The issues discussed in the attached Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in B-099.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/​importadmin/​records/​frn/​,, under the heading Mexico. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins:

Manufacturer/exporter	Margin (percent)
CEMEX	95.44
Apasco	53.26
Cementos Hildago, S.C.L.	3.69
All others	59.91

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 April 19, 2000. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than April 10, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than April 17, 2000. The Department will issue a notice of final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than June 27, 2000.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: February 18, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Footnotes

1.  See Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Full Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 66879 (November 30, 1999).

2.  See Notice of Scope Rulings, 61 FR 18381 (April 25, 1996). In their rebuttal comments (at 24-26), the domestic interested parties argue that the aforementioned scope ruling is only specific to Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V. (“CDC”), and Mexcement, Inc. The domestic interested parties argue that masonry cement exported to the United States by CEMEX and Apasco should not be excluded from the scope. However, in Final Scope Ruling—Antidumping Duty Order on Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico (A-201-802) (January 18, 1996, memorandum from Holly A. Kuga, Director Office of Antidumping Compliance, to Joseph A Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance), the Department determined that masonry cement is excluded from the scope of the order based on the chemical characteristics and end-use of the product and not on specific manufacturers. Specifically, the Department excluded the masonry cement because its uses (in mortar for masonry construction for joining bricks and blocks) do not fall within the scope of the order (as a primary component of concrete). In addition, the petitioners made a joint submission in which they agreed that masonry cement is excluded from the scope so long as masonry cement could not be used to produce concrete. Finally, the Final Scope Ruling concerns the subject merchandise from Mexico, not just that of CDC or Mexcement. Consequently, the Department excluded all masonry cement from Mexico, regardless of the company at which the masonry cement originated, from the scope of the order.