[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30310-30313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14338]
[[Page 30310]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-503][A-122-503][A-570-502]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain Iron
Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada and The People's Republic of
China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain
Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, Canada, and The People's
Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 2, 1998, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty orders
on certain iron construction castings from Brazil, Canada and the
People's Republic of China (``the PRC'') (63 FR 58709) pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On
the bases of notices of intent to participate and substantive responses
filed on behalf of the domestic industry, and inadequate responses (in
these cases, no responses) from respondent interested parties, the
Department determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result of
these reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping
orders 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: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G.
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. &
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3207
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1999.
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 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
Brazil--merchandise covered by the order on Brazil consists of
certain iron construction castings. Heavy castings are limited to
manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basins, grates and frames,
cleanout covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for
public utility, water and sanitary systems. Light castings are limited
to valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to
encase water, gas, or other valves, or water or gas meters. These
articles must be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not malleable.
``Heavy'' castings are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(``HTS'') item number 7325.10.0010, and ``light'' castings are
classified under HTS item number 7325.10.0050. On April 28, 1995, the
Department determined, in response to a request from Southland
Marketing, Inc., that the Polycast 700 Series frame, part number
DG0700, and grate, part number DG0641, are not within the scope of the
antidumping duty order on iron construction castings from Brazil (see
Notice of Scope Rulings, 60 FR 36782, (July 18, 1995).
Canada--merchandise covered by the order on Canada consists of
certain iron construction castings. Heavy castings are limited to
manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basins, grates and frames,
cleanout covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for
public utility, water and sanitary systems. ``Heavy'' castings are
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') item number
7325.10.0010. These articles must be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not
malleable. On September 23, 1998, the Department issued the final
results of a changed circumstance review, in which the Department
revoked the order with respect to ``light'' castings.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Iron Construction Castings From Canada: Notice of Final
Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order:
Correction, 63 FR 50881 (September 23, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC--merchandise covered by the order on the PRC consists of
certain iron construction castings. Heavy castings are limited to
manhole covers, rings, and frames, catch basins, grates and frames,
cleanout covers and frames used for drainage or access purposes for
public utility, water and sanitary systems. Light castings are limited
to valve, service, and meter boxes which are placed below ground to
encase water, gas, or other valves, or water or gas meters. These
articles must be of cast iron, not alloyed, and not malleable.
``Heavy'' castings are classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(``HTS'') item number 7325.10.0010, and ``light'' castings are
classified under HTS item number 7325.10.0050. In response to a request
from Jack's International Trading Associates, Ltd., on August 28, 1995,
the Department determined that certain cast iron, floor area drains are
outside the scope of the order. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 60 FR
54213 (October 20, 1995). Further, in response to a request from The
Metraflex Company, on August 13, 1997, the Department determined that
``Y'' pipe strainers are outside the scope of the of the order (see
Notice of Scope Rulings, 62 FR 62288 (November 21, 1997)).
The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs
purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.
These reviews cover all manufacturers and exporters of certain iron
construction castings from Brazil, Canada and the PRC.
Background
On November 2, 1998, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping orders on certain iron construction castings from Brazil,
Canada and the PRC (63 FR 58709) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.
On November 17, 1998, we received Notices of Intent to Participate on
behalf of the Municipal Castings Fair Trade Council (``MCFTC'') and its
individual members 2 (collectively, the ``domestic
parties''), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i)
of the Sunset Regulations. We received complete substantive responses
on behalf of the domestic parties on December 2, 1998, within the 30-
day deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. The individual members of the MCFTC claimed interested
party status pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. domestic
producers of certain iron construction castings. MCFTC claimed
interested party status as a trade association representing the
domestic industry pursuant to section 771(9)(E) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MCFTC is comprised of Allegheny Foundry Company, Bingham
& Taylor, Deeter Foundry Inc., East Jordan Iron Works, Inc., LeBaron
Foundry, Inc., Municipal Castings, Inc., Neenah Foundry Company,
Tyler Pipe, and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Co. Bingham & Taylor
and Tyler Pipe are manufacturers only of so-called ``light
castings'' and, thus, are not interested parties in the review of
the Canada order which covers only ``heavy castings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30311]]
We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent
interested party in any of these reviews. Therefore, pursuant to
section 19 C.F.R Sec. 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Sunset Regulations,
we determined to conduct expedited sunset reviews of these orders.
The Department determined that the sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on certain iron construction castings from
Brazil, Canada, and the PRC are extraordinarily complicated. 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). See
section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. Therefore, on March 2, 1999, the
Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results
of these reviews until not later than June 1, 1999, in accordance with
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Iron Construction Castings From Canada, Brazil and the
People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Final
Results of Five-Year Review, 64 FR 10985 (March 8, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping orders would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c)(1) 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
order. Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department shall
provide to the International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the
magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the orders are
revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.
In addition, the domestic parties' comments with respect to the
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. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2. of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin). Furthermore, the Department indicated that normally it will
determine that revocation of an antidumping order is likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping when (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).
In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood
determinations cited above, section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides
that the Department shall determine that revocation of an order is
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping when a
respondent interested party waives its participation in the sunset
review. In these reviews, the Department did not receive a response
from any respondent interested party. Pursuant to section
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver
of participation.
The Department issued antidumping duty orders on certain iron
construction castings from Brazil,4 Canada,5 and
the PRC 6 in 1986. Since that time the Department has
conducted several administrative reviews of each of these
orders.7 The antidumping duty orders remain in effect for
all producers/exporters of certain iron construction castings from
Brazil, Canada and the PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Iron Construction Castings From
Brazil, 51 FR 17200 (May 9, 1986).
\5\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Iron Construction Castings From
Canada, 51 FR 7600 (March 5, 1986) and Iron Construction Castings
From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 34110
(September 25, 1986).
\6\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Iron Construction Castings From
the People's Republic of China (the PRC), 51 FR 17222 (May 9, 1986).
\7\ See Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 9477, (March
19, 1986); Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 26238,
(June 27, 1990) corrected, 55 FR 41262 (October 10, 1990) and
Certain Iron Construction Castings from Brazil; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 43019 (October 25,
1990). See Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 2412 (January
16, 1986); Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada: Amendment
to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 34110 (September 25,
1986); Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 55 FR 460 (January 5,
1990); Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 23274 (May 21,
1991); Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Final Results
of Antidumping Administrative Review, 59 FR 25603 (May 17, 1994);
Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review, 60 FR 9009 (February 16, 1995);
Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada; Intent to revoke
antidumping duty order, 62 FR 9735 (March 4, 1997), Certain Iron
Construction Castings from Canada; Determination Not to Revoke
Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 23432 (April 30, 1997); Certain Iron
Construction Castings from Canada; Notice of Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 45797 (August 27,
1998); Certain Iron Construction Castings from Canada: Notice of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 9483 (March 19, 1986). See
Certain Iron Construction Castings from the People's Republic of
China, 56 FR 2742 (January 24, 1991). See Certain Iron Construction
Castings from The People's Republic of China, Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 10644 (March 27, 1992;
and Certain Iron Construction Castings from The People's Republic of
China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60
FR 51454 (October 2, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their substantive responses, the domestic parties argue that the
respondents have reduced their sales to the United States dramatically
and, thus, if the orders were revoked, it is likely that dumping would
continue because the evidence demonstrates that the foreign producers/
exporters need to dump to sell in any significant quantities in the
United States. Specifically, the domestic parties argue that volume and
value data on imports of heavy castings demonstrates that once the
orders were imposed, imports began to decline. The domestic parties
note that imports of heavy castings from Brazil fell from over 10
million pounds in 1986 to just over 5 million pounds in 1987, the first
full year after the order, and dropped each year thereafter until
reaching zero in 1991 and 1992. Although imports subsequently resumed,
they have not gone over 294,000 pounds in any year. The domestic
parties note that imports from Canada followed a similar, albeit less
dramatic pattern, dropping from a pre-order high of over 20 million
pounds, down to just over six million pounds in 1992. The domestic
parties state that, although imports have since increased, they have
not reached their pre-order level. With respect to imports of heavy
castings from the PRC, the domestic
[[Page 30312]]
parties state that imports did not decrease immediately after the
issuance of the order. The domestic parties argue that this is
presumably because the 11.66 percent rate from the original
investigation was an insufficient deterrent to importers. The
statistics provided by the domestic parties demonstrate that imports of
heavy castings from the PRC increased each year through 1989, and did
not begin to decrease significantly until 1991. The domestic parties
point out that the higher margins from the final results of the 87-88
and 88-89 administrative reviews were issued in January 1991.
With respect to imports of light castings, the domestic parties
state that because light castings enter the United States under a so-
called ``basket'' category, they do not have firm data on import for
this merchandise. They assert, however, based on day-to-day observation
of conditions of competition in the marketplace, that imports have
dwindled and there is little evidence of either Brazilian or Chinese
import offerings of these items and a much-reduced presence of imports
from Canada.
With respect to whether dumping continued at any levels above de
minimis after the issuance of these orders, the domestic parties note
that dumping margins above de minimis were found in the original
investigations and in each subsequent administrative review conducted
by the Department.
Citing to the SAA, the domestic parties argue that the declining
import volumes from all three countries, in addition to reflecting the
existence of dumping margins after the orders went into effect, is
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping if these orders were revoked. The domestic parties conclude
that the Department should assume that exporters of the subject
castings from Brazil, Canada and the PRC cannot sell their goods in the
U.S. market without dumping and, therefore, they would have to continue
or resume dumping if they want to reenter the U.S. market at any
reasonable commercial volumes.
As discussed in section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, ``[E]xistence of dumping
margins after the order, or cessation of imports after the order, is
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping. If companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order
in place, it is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the
discipline were removed.'' As the domestic parties noted, dumping
margins above de minimis were found to exist in each of the
administrative reviews conducted by the Department of these orders.
Further, deposit rates above de minimis continue in effect for imports
of castings from Brazil, Canada, and the PRC. Therefore, given that
dumping margins above de minimis were found to exist and continue in
effect, respondent interested parties waived their right to participate
in these reviews, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the orders
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 permit the use of a more recently calculated
margin, when appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption
determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin.)
With respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if
the antidumping duty orders were revoked, the domestic parties argue
that application of the principles set forth in the SAA and the Sunset
Policy Bulletin support the conclusion that the Department should rely
on the margins from the original investigations on Brazil and Canada.
The domestic parties suggest that with respect to the PRC, the
Department should select a more recently calculated margin consistent
with section II.B.2. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin. The domestic
parties base this assertion on the fact that, as a result of final
results of administrative reviews issued in 1991, the antidumping duty
rates increased to almost 25 percent and 46 percent. Further, it was in
1991 that imports from the PRC began to decrease. In conclusion, the
domestic parties state that the rate of 24.21 percent may be most
appropriate to provide to the Commission, as that is the rate likely to
be closest to the rate that ultimately may be applied to castings from
the PRC at the conclusion of the pending litigation concerning the
1998-89 and 1989-90 review periods.
The Department agrees with the domestic parties as to the magnitude
of the margin likely to prevail were the orders on Brazil and Canada
revoked. An examination of the margin history of the orders as well as
an examination of the import statistics provided by the domestic
parties confirms that dumping continued after the issuance of the
orders and imports of the subject merchandise continue. Therefore, in
accordance with the Sunset Policy Bulletin and absent an argument that
a more recently calculated margin is more indicative of the margin
likely to prevail if the orders on Brazil and Canada were revoked, we
determine that the margins calculated in the Department's original
investigation are probative of the behavior of Brazilian and Canadian
producers and exporters of certain iron construction castings.
We agree with the domestic parties with regard to the use of a more
recently calculated rate with respect to the PRC. According to the
Sunset Policy Bulletin, ``a company may choose to increase dumping in
order to maintain or increase market share. As a result, increasing
margins may be more representative of a company's behavior in the
absence of an order'' (see section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin). In addition, the Sunset Policy Bulletin notes that the
Department will normally consider market share; however, absent
information on relative market share, and absent argument or evidence
to the contrary, we have relied on import volumes in the review on
certain iron construction castings from the PRC. The import statistics
related to imports of heavy castings provided by the domestic parties
demonstrate that imports (on a volume basis) from the PRC increased
every year between 1986 and 1989. The import level in 1990 decreased
slightly from imports in 1989. After the issuance in January 1991, of
the final results of reviews covering May 1, 1987 through April 30,
1988 and May 1, 1988 through April 30, 1989, imports from the PRC
declined precipitously. During the periods when imports were
increasing, the Department found increasing dumping margins (24.21% in
1987, 45.92% in 1988, and 92.74% in 1989). In light of the correlation
between the increase in imports and the increase in the dumping margin,
the Department finds that a more recently calculated rate is the most
probative of the behavior of Chinese producers/exporters of certain
iron construction castings. Because imports continued to increase
through calendar year 1989, and there was only a minor decrease in
imports in the following year, we determine that the dumping margin
applicable to the review of imports during the period May 1, 1989
through April 30, 1990, is
[[Page 30313]]
probative of the behavior of Chinese producers and exporters of
castings absent the discipline of the order.
Pursuant to Section 752(c) of the Act, the Department will report
to the Commission the company-specific and ``all others'' rates at the
levels indicated 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 order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturers/exporters (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil:
Fundicao Aldebara, Ltda. (ALDEBARA)................. 58.74
Sociedade de Metalurgia E Processos, Ltda. (SOMEP).. 16.61
Companhia Siderurgica da Guanabara (COSIGUA) 5.95
formerly Usina Siderurgica Paraense, S.A. (USIPA)..
All others.......................................... 26.16
Canada:
Bibby Ste. Croix Foundries, Inc..................... 8.60
LaPerle Foundry, Ltd................................ 4.40
Mueller Canada, Inc................................. 9.80
All Others.......................................... 7.50
China:
All manufacturers/exporters......................... 92.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 published in
accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-14338 Filed 6-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
