[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 150 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42656-42658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20222]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-003]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Cotton Shop Towels From
the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: cotton shop
towels from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on cotton shop towels from the People's Republic of China (64 FR 364)
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 and adequate
substantive comments filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and
inadequate response (in this case, no response) from respondent
interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited
review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that
revocation of the antidumping order 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 Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 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
The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is cotton
shop towels from the People's Republic of China. Shop towels are
absorbent industrial wiping cloths made from a loosely woven fabric.
The fabric may be either 100-percent cotton or a blend of materials.
Shop towels are currently classifiable under item numbers 6307.10.2005
and 6307.10.2015 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United
States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope
of this proceeding remains dispositive.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department determined that certain 18''x30'' dish towels
(02/19/93) are within the scope of the order. Pursuant to court
remand, the Department determined that certain cotton shop towels,
hemmed or cut and hemmed in Honduras, are within the scope of the
order (1/18/94). The Department determined that the following
products are outside the scope of the order: towels assembled in
Canada from cotton grey fabric from the People's Republic of China
(8/21/90).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of
Chinese shop towels.
History of the Order
On August 16, 1983, the Department issued its amended final
determination of sales at less than fair value in the investigation of
cotton shop towels from the People's Republic of China (48 FR 37055).
The Department published weighted average dumping margins of 30.1
percent for China National Textile Import & Export Corporation and 37.2
percent for China National Arts & Crafts Import & Export Corporation.
The Department also published a weighted average dumping margin of 36.2
percent for all other Chinese manufacturers/exporters.
The antidumping duty order on cotton shop towels from the People's
Republic of China was published in the Federal Register on October 4,
1983 (48 FR 45277). Since that time, the Department has conducted six
administrative reviews.2 The order remains in effect for all
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Shop Towels of Cotton From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order,
50 FR 26020 (June 24, 1985); Shop Towels of Cotton From the People's
Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review of
Antidumping Order, 55 FR 7756 (March 5, 1990); Shop Towels of Cotton
From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative
Review of Antidumping Order, 56 FR 4040 (February 1, 1991); Shop
Towels of Cotton From the People's Republic of China; Final Results
of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, 56 FR 60969 (November
29, 1991); Shop Towels of Cotton From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order,
57 FR 30466 (July 9, 1992); and Shop Towels of Cotton From the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review
of Antidumping Order, 57 FR 43695 (September 22, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on cotton shop towels from the People's Republic
of China (64 FR 364), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of
Milliken & Company (``Milliken'') on January 19, 1999, within the
deadline specified in Sec. 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.
We received a complete substantive response from Milliken on February
3, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations
under Sec. 351.218(d)(3)(i). Milliken claimed interested party status
under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of shop
towels. In addition, Milliken stated that it was the petitioner in the
original investigation. We did not receive a substantive response from
any respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to
conduct an expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping
duty order on cotton shop towels from the People's Republic of China is
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). Therefore, on May 3, 1999, the Department
extended the time limit for
[[Page 42657]]
completion of the final results of this review until not later than
August 2, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the
Act.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Steel Wire Rope From Japan, Shop Towels From the
People's Republic of China, Shop Towels From Bangladesh, Candles
From the People's Republic of China, Steel Wire Rope From Mexico,
Shop Towels From Pakistan, Steel Wire Rope From South Korea,
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From South Korea, Malleable Cast
Iron Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings
From Japan: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year
Reviews, 64 FR 24573 (May 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty order 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 duty
order, and it shall provide to the International Trade Commission
(``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to
prevail if the order is revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed
below. In addition, Milliken's comments with respect to 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 bases 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). In addition, the Department
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an
antidumping duty 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 of the subject
merchandise declined significantly (see section II.A.3).
In addition to considering guidance on likelihood 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 where a respondent interested party waives its
participation in the sunset review. In the instant review, the
Department did not receive a response from any respondent interested
party. Pursuant to Sec. 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations,
this constitutes a waiver of participation.
In its substantive response, Milliken argues that the history of
the case and the actions taken by Chinese producers and exporters of
shop towels prior to and during the pendency of this proceeding clearly
demonstrate that revocation likely would result in a recurrence of
dumping of shop towels in the United States. Specifically, Milliken,
citing The World Trade Atlas (Nov. 1998), asserts that Chinese
producers and exporters significantly reduced their shipments to the
United States and ultimately ceased exportation after the Department
calculated extremely high dumping margins in subsequent reviews (see
February 3, 1999, Substantive Response of Milliken at 4).
In conclusion, Milliken argues that the Department should determine
that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue or recur were
the order revoked because imports of the subject merchandise decreased
significantly after the imposition of the order and continue to be
virtually non-existent.
The Department agrees with Milliken that imports of the subject
merchandise decreased substantially over the 16-year period from the
imposition of the order in 1983 to the present. However, we disagree
with Milliken's assertion that the Department should rest its decision
on the basis that imports of subject merchandise have ceased. Despite a
two-year cessation of imports between 1996 and 1997, shipments of the
subject merchandise from the People's Republic of China continue.
With respect to dumping margins, an examination of the final
results of administrative reviews confirms that dumping margins above
de minimis levels have continued throughout the life of the
order.4 As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies
continue dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the
Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the
discipline were removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Shop Towels of Cotton From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order,
50 FR 26020 (June 24, 1985); Shop Towels of Cotton From the People's
Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review of
Antidumping Order, 55 FR 7756 (March 5, 1990); Shop Towels of Cotton
From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative
Review of Antidumping Order, 56 FR 4040 (February 1, 1991); Shop
Towels of Cotton From the People's Republic of China; Final Results
of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, 56 FR 60969 (November
29, 1991); Shop Towels of Cotton From the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order,
57 FR 30466 (July 9, 1992); and Shop Towels of Cotton From the
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review
of Antidumping Order, 57 FR 43695 (September 22, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates
above de minimis levels continue in effect for exports of the subject
merchandise by all known Chinese manufacturers/exporters. Therefore,
given that dumping has continued over the life of the order, imports of
subject merchandise declined significantly, and respondent interested
parties have waived their right to participate in this review before
the Department, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the order
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.)
The Department, in its final determination of sales at less than
fair value, published weighted-average
[[Page 42658]]
dumping margins for two producers/exporters of cotton shop towels from
the People's Republic of China (48 FR 37055, August 16,
1983).5 The Department also published an ``all others'' rate
in its determination. We note that, to date, the Department has not
issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The dumping margins from this determination were
subsequently amended. See Cotton Shop Towels From the People's
Republic of China; Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, 48 FR 37055 (August 16, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, citing to the final results of the
1990/1991 administrative review, Milliken asserts that the margins
found in the original investigation are far below the most recently
calculated margins. Accordingly, Milliken argues that, consistent with
the Sunset Policy Bulletin and legislative history, the Department
should inform the Commission that the margins likely to prevail are the
more recently calculated rates of 72.14 percent for Tianjin Arts &
Crafts Import & Export Corporation and 122.81 percent for all other
companies. Milliken notes that its suggested margins, from the 1990/
1991 administrative review, reflect the most likely U.S. pricing levels
for Chinese shop towels if the order were revoked (see February 3, 1999
Substantive Response of Milliken at 6).
The Department disagrees with Milliken's argument concerning the
choice of the margins to report to the Commission. The Department finds
the existence of higher margins after the initial investigation, as a
sole criterion, provides insufficient reason for the Department to
deviate from its stated policy.6 Milliken has not presented
any argument or evidence to suggest that such increases in margins have
been coupled with increases in import volumes and, thus, increased
dumping in an attempt to gain, or even maintain, market share. Absent
such argument and evidence, the Department finds that the margins
calculated in the original investigation are probative of the behavior
of Chinese producers and/or exporters if the order were revoked as they
are the only margins which reflect their actions absent the discipline
of the order. As such, the Department will report to the Commission the
company-specific and ``all others'' rates from the original
investigation as contained in the Final Results of Review section of
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Department recognizes that where a more recent dumping
margin is ``more representative of a company's behavior in the
absence of an order,'' such margin should be reported to the
Commission (see Sunset Policy Bulletin). The ``more representative''
standard may be satisfied if the Department finds an ``increase in
imports * * * corresponding to the increase in the dumping margin''
(see Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barium Chloride From
the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 5633 (February 4, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Textile Import & Export Corp................ 30.1
China National Arts & Crafts Import & Export Corp.......... 37.2
All Other Chinese Manufacturers/Exporters.................. 36.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: July 30, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20222 Filed 8-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
