[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5638-5640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2672]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-427-078; A-423-077; A-428-082]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Sugar From France,
Belgium and Germany
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Sugar from
France, Belgium and Germany.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping findings on
sugar from France, Belgium and Germany (63 FR 52683) pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On
the bases of the notices of intent to participate and substantive
comments filed on behalf of the domestic industry, as well as
inadequate responses (in these cases, no responses) from respondent
interested parties, the Department determined to conduct expedited
reviews. As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that
revocation of the antidumping findings would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the
Final Results of Review 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
Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202)
482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
These reviews were 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 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 these antidumping findings is sugar,
both raw and refined, with the exception of specialty sugars, from
France, Belgium and Germany. The order on sugar from France excludes
homeopathic sugar pellets meeting the following criteria: (1) composed
of 85 percent sucrose and 15 percent lactose; (2) have a polished,
matte appearance, and more uniformly porous than domestic sugar cubes;
(3) produced in two sizes of 2 mm and 3.8 mm in diameter.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Sugar from France; Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation
in Part of Antidumping Finding, 61 FR 40609 (August 5, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings: 1701.1100, 1701.1101, 1701.1102, 1701.1103, 1701.1105,
1701.1110, 1701.1120, 1701.1150, 1701.1200, 1701.1201, 1701.1202,
1701.1205, 1701.1210, 1701.1250, 1701.9105, 1701.9110, 1701.9120,
1701.9121, 1701.9122, 1701.9130, 1701.9900, 1701.9901, 1701.9902,
1701.9905, 1701.9910, 1701.9950, 1702.9005, 1702.9010, 1702.9020,
1702.9030, 1702.9031, 1702.9032, 2106.9011, 2106.9012, 2106.9042,
2106.9044, and 2106.9046. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes only. They are not determinative of
the products subject to the orders. The written description remains
dispositive.
These reviews cover all manufacturers and exporters of sugar from
France, Belgium and Germany.
Background
On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping findings on sugar from France, Belgium and Germany (63 FR
52683), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received
a Notice of Intent to Participate for each of these findings from The
United States Beet Sugar Association and The United States Cane Sugar
Refiners' Association (``the Associations'') on October 16, 1998,
within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. The Associations claimed interested party status under
section 771(9)(E) of the Act as a trade association whose members
produce sugar in the United States. We received a complete substantive
response from the Associations on November 2, 1998, within the 30-day
deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section
351.218(d)(3)(i), for each of these findings. In each of the
substantive responses, the Associations claimed interested party status
under subsections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(E) & (G)(i-iii) of the Act. We
did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested
party in these sunset proceedings. As a result, pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and our regulations (19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), the Department determined to conduct
expedited reviews.
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping findings 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
[[Page 5639]]
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 margin are discussed below. In
addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or recurrence
of dumping and the magnitude of 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 findings on sugar from France, Belgium, and Germany
were published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 79-167 (44
FR 33878, June 13, 1979). Since that time, the Department has conducted
a number of administrative reviews on each of these findings but found
there were no shipments during the periods of review.2 The
findings remain in effect for all imports of the subject merchandise
from France, Belgium and Germany.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Sugar from France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of
Germany; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping
Finding, 46 FR 22778 (April 21, 1981); Sugar from France, Belgium
and the Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of Administrative
Review of Antidumping Finding, 47 FR 3399 (January 25, 1982); Sugar
from France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany; Final
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 48 FR 1786
(January 14, 1983); and Sugar from France, Belgium and the Federal
Republic of Germany; Final Results of Administrative Review of
Antidumping Finding, 49 FR 43738 (October 31, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive responses, the Associations argue that the
actions (the cessation of exports of sugar to the U.S.) taken by
French, Belgian and German producers and exporters of sugar during the
life of these findings indicate that ``revocation of the antidumping
and countervailing duty orders on sugar would likely lead to the
recurrence of dumping and of a countervailable subsidy'' (see November
2, 1998, Substantive Responses of the Associations at 2). With respect
to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the
issuance of these findings, the Associations assert that, as documented
in the final results of reviews reached by the Department, dumping
levels have remained constant throughout the life of the findings, with
margins of 102 percent for French producers and exporters, 103 percent
for Belgian producers and exporters and 121 percent for German
producers and exporters.
With respect to whether there has been a cessation of imports of
the subject merchandise, the Associations stated that, soon after the
issuance of the findings, sugar imports from France, Belgium and
Germany ceased. The Department confirmed that there were no shipments
of subject merchandise from any of the three countries since the late
1970's.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Sugar from France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of
Germany; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping
Finding, 46 FR 22778 (April 21, 1981); Sugar from France, Belgium
and the Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of Administrative
Review of Antidumping Finding, 47 FR 3399 (January 25, 1982); Sugar
from France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany; Final
Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 48 FR 1786
(January 14, 1983); and Sugar from France, Belgium and the Federal
Republic of Germany; Final Results of Administrative Review of
Antidumping Finding, 49 FR 43738 (October 31, 1984) in which the
Department found no shipments by any of the companies reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that the cessation of imports after the issuance of the
findings is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Furthermore, deposit rates above de minimis
levels continue in effect for all shipments of the subject merchandise
from each of the three countries. As discussed in Section II.A.3. of
the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-
64, if imports cease after the order is issued, we may reasonably
assume that exporters could not sell in the United States without
dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume
dumping. Therefore, absent argument and evidence to the contrary, given
that shipments of the subject merchandise ceased soon after the
issuance of the findings, and that dumping margins continue to exist,
the Department, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the
findings were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in
the final determination in the original investigation. 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.)
In these cases, Treasury published country-wide weighted-average
dumping margins for each of the three findings. The rates established
were 102 percent for all exports from France, 103 percent for all
exports from Belgium and 121 percent for all exports from Germany (44
FR 8949, February 12, 1979).
In its substantive response, the Associations state that the
dumping margins for each of these findings are likely to be at least as
high as the first margins calculated at the time of the original
investigation. In fact, the Associations project, based on current U.S.
and EU pricing (which is uniform in all EU countries), a dumping margin
of 263 percent ad valorem would prevail if the findings were
revoked.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Associations also project, on a constructed value basis,
a dumping margin of 153.73 percent from France, 152.07 percent from
Belgium and 220.54 percent from Germany. See November 2, 1998,
Substantive Responses of the Associations, at 21 and 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department finds that the country-wide weighted-averaged
margins calculated in the original investigations are probative of how
French, Belgian and German producers and exporters of sugar would act
if the findings were revoked. However, with respect to the projected
dumping
[[Page 5640]]
margins calculated by the Associations, we note that the SAA at 890-891
provides that, only in the most extraordinary circumstances, will the
Department rely on dumping margins other than those it calculated and
published in its prior determinations. The Sunset Regulations at 19 CFR
351.218(e)(2)(i) explain that ``extraordinary circumstances'' may be
considered by the Department in the context of a full sunset review,
where the substantive responses from both domestic and respondent
interested parties are adequate. In these cases, however, the
Department determined to conduct expedited sunset reviews because the
respondents did not submit any substantive responses to the notice of
initiation. Thus, in light of the inadequate responses, the Department
will not consider whether, in these sunset reviews, it should rely on
margins other than the rates from the original investigations.
Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine
that the original margins calculated by Treasury are probative of the
behavior of the French, Belgian and German producers and exporters of
sugar if the findings were revoked. We will report to the Commission
the country-wide margins contained in the Final Results of Review
section of this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation
of the antidumping findings would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturers/exporters (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All French Manufacturers/Exporters........................... 102
All Belgian Manufacturers/Exporters.......................... 103
All German Manufacturers/Exporters........................... 121
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: January 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-2672 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
