00-5507. Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Sunset Review

AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of final results of antidumping duty sunset review.

SUMMARY:

On August 2, 1999, the Department of Commerce published the notice of initiation of sunset review of the antidumping duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia (64 FR 41915). The merchandise covered by this order is extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. 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 (in this case no response) from respondent interested parties, we determined to conduct an expedited sunset review. As a result of this review, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”

EFFECTIVE DATE:

March 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statute and Regulations

This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 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”).

Background

On August 2, 1999, the Department initiated the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia (64 FR 41915). We invited parties to comment. 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 (in this case no response) from respondent interested parties, we determined to conduct an expedited sunset review. The Department has conducted 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 review concerns a transition order within the meaning of section 751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, on December 3, 1999 the Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia is extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this review until not later than February 28, 2000, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.^[1]

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is extruded rubber thread from Malaysia. Extruded rubber thread is defined as vulcanized rubber thread obtained by extrusion of stable or concentrated natural rubber latex of any cross sectional shape, measuring from 0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140 gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch or 18 gauge, in diameter. Extruded rubber thread is currently classifiable under subheading 4007.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The antidumping duty order of the subject merchandise remains in effect for all producers and exporters of extruded rubber thread from Malaysia.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case 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 28, 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/​import_​admin/​records/​frn/​,, under the heading “Malaysia”. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

We 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)
Heveafil/Filmax Schn. Bhd	108.62
Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd	20.36
Filati Lastex Elastofibre (Malaysia)	105.78
Rubfil Sdn. Bhd	108.62
All Others	15.16

In addition, in the 1995-1996 administrative review, the Department found that the four companies identified above absorbed duties on the following percentage of their U.S. sales: Heaveafil—100 percent, Rubberflex—57.35 percent, Filati—100 percent, and Rubfil—100 percent.

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 or conversion to judicial protective order 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 this determination and notice in accordance with sections section 751(c), 752, and 777(i) of the Act.

Dated: February 28, 2000.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Footnotes

1.  See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 67847 (December 3, 1999).