E6-1633. Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Japan; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

On October 3, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker (cement) from Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.218. On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and no responses from respondent interested parties, the Department has conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review. See section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of the sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

February 7, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Zev Primor or Jeffrey Frank, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: [phone] or [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background:

On October 3, 2005, the Department initiated the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on cement from Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 70 FR 57560 (October 3, 2005). The Department received a notice of intent to participate from the Committee for Fairly Traded Japanese Cement, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, the United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, and the Local Lodge 93 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (collectively, the domestic interested parties) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i) pertaining to sunset reviews. The domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the United States of a domestic like product, under section 771(9)(D) of the Act as a certified union or recognized union or group of workers which is representative of an industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale in the United States of a domestic like product, and under section 771(9)(E) of the Act as a trade or business association, a majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic like product in the United States. We received a complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no responses from the respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the order.

Scope of the Order:

The products covered by this order are cement and cement clinker from Japan. Cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Cement clinker, an intermediate material produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than grinding into finished cement. Microfine cement was specifically excluded from the antidumping duty order. 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. Cement has also been entered under HTS item number 2523.90 as “other hydraulic cements.” The Department made two scope rulings regarding subject merchandise. See Scope Rulings, 57 FR 19602 (May 7, 1992), classes G and H of oil well cement are within the scope of the order, and Scope Rulings, 58 FR 27542 (May 10, 1993), “Nittetsu Super Fine” cement is not within the scope of the order. The order remains in effect for all manufacturers, producers, and exporters of cement from Japan.

The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

Analysis of Comments Received:

All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated January 31, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order is 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 room B-099 of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/​frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review:

We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on cement and cement clinker from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:

Manufacturers/Exporters/Producers	Weighted-Average Margin (percent)
Onoda Cement Company, Ltd.	70.52
Nihon Cement Company, Ltd.	69.89
All Other Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters	70.23

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 30, 2006.

David M. Spooner,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.