[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 176 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49444-49446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23044]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-401-601]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip
From Sweden
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet
and Strip from Sweden.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
brass sheet and strip from Sweden (64 FR 4840) 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
response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate
response (in this case, a waiver) 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
duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping at the levels indicated in the ``Final Result of Review''
section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun W. Cho 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-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) 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
This order covers shipments of brass sheet and strip, other than
leaded and tinned, from Sweden. The chemical composition of the covered
products is currently defined in the Copper Development Association
(``C.D.A.'') 200 Series or the Unified Numbering System (``U.N.S.'')
C2000. This review does not cover products with chemical compositions
that are defined by anything other than either the C.D.A. or U.N.S.
series. In physical dimensions, the products covered by this review
have a solid rectangular cross section over .0006 inches (.15
millimeters) through .1888 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished
thickness or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels
(traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included. The
merchandise is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(``HTS'') item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. The HTS numbers are
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive.
History of the Order
The antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Sweden was
published in the Federal Register on March 6, 1987 (52 FR
6998).1 In that order, the Department indicated that the
weighted-average dumping margin for all entries of brass sheet and
strip from Sweden is 9.49 percent.2 Since that time, the
Department has completed several administrative reviews.3
The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the
subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From
Sweden, March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6998).
\2\ However, the order and subsequent reviews dealt with only
one Swedish company, Outokumpu (in the original investigation,
Outokumpu was doing business under the name Metallverken Nederland
B.V., see March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of the domestic
interested parties at 27).
\3\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, November 27, 1990 (55 FR
49317); Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, January 23, 1992 (57 FR
2706); Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Amendment to Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, May 7, 1991 (56 FR
21128); Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, July 1, 1992 (57 FR 29278);
Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Affirmation of the Results of
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, April 28, 1994 (59 FR
21958); and Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, January 18, 1995 (60 FR
3617).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping order on brass sheet and strip from Sweden (64 FR
4840), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a
Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Heyco Metals, Inc.
(``Heyco''), Hussey Copper Ltd. (``Hussey''), Olin Corporation-Brass
Group (``Olin''), Outokumpu American Brass (``OAB'') (formerly American
Brass Company),4 PMX Industries, Inc. (``PMX''), Revere
Copper Products, Inc. (``Revere''), the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the United Auto Workers (Local 2367),
and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL/CIO) (collectively ``the
domestic interested parties'') on February 16, 1999, within the
deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested party
status under sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act as U.S. brass
mills, rerollers, and unions whose workers are engaged
[[Page 49445]]
in the production of subject brass sheet and strip in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Outokumpu American Brass is opposing continuation of the
antidumping duty order against Sweden. See March 3, 1999 Substantive
Response of the domestic interested parties at page 3, footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received a complete substantive response from the domestic
interested parties on March 3, 1999, within the 30-day deadline
specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). In
their substantive response, the domestic interested parties indicate
that most of their members were parties to the original investigation
with a few exceptions: Heyco did not participate in the original
investigation but fully supports the instant review, and PMX was
established after the original petitions were filed. The domestic
parties also note that OAB was formerly known as American Brass
Company.
We received a statement of waiver from respondent interested party,
Outokumpu, to this proceeding, (see Outokumpu's March 3, 1999 Statement
of Waiver). In its waiver, Outokumpu made unsolicited comments that it
no longer produces the subject merchandise in Sweden, and that it
dismantled and removed the machinery required to produce the subject
merchandise from Swedish plants.5 As a result of Outokumpu's
filing of waiver, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the
Department determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day, review of this
order.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ To support this, Outokumpu submitted two unsolicited
affidavits, each attesting to the fact that Outokumpu no longer
produces the subject merchandise in Sweden: one from Programme
Director of Trade Policy for the Federation of Swedish Industries
and the other from Division for the Americas Desk Officer at the
Swedish Ministry for Foregin Affairs. Nonetheless, as per section
351.218(d)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulation, the Department did not
consider the unsolicited comments made by Outokumpu in making its
determination.
\6\ The domestic interested parties filed comments, pertaining
to the Department's decision to conduct a expedited (120-day) sunset
review for the present review, in which the domestic party concurred
with the Department's decision, see May 12, 1999 the domestic
interested parties' comments on the Adequacy of Responses and the
Appropriateness of Expedited Sunset Review at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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--an order which was in effect on January
1, 1995, see section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. The Department determined
that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and
strip from Sweden is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, on June 7,
1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the
preliminary results of this review until not later than August 30,
1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's
Republic of China, Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Taiwan, Top-
of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea (South) (AD &
CVD), Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Taiwan (AD
& CVD), Standard Carnations From Chile (AD & CVD), Fresh Cut Flowers
From Mexico, Fresh Cut Flowers From Ecuador, Brass Sheet and Strip
From Brazil (AD & CVD), Brass Sheet and Strip From Korea (South),
Brass Sheet and Strip From France (AD & CVD), Brass Sheet and Strip
From Germany, Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy, Brass Sheet and
Strip From Sweden, Brass Sheet and Strip From Japan, Pompon
Chrysanthemums From Peru: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results
of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 30305 (June 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 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 order, and
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, the domestic interested parties' 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 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).
In addition to considering the 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 received a statement of waiver from the only respondent
interested party, Outokumpu.
In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties
propose that revocation of the order will likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping of brass sheet and strip from Sweden (see
March 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties
at 44-45). To illustrate their contention, the domestic interested
parties point out a drastic decline of import volumes of the subject
merchandise since the issuance of the order. Also, the domestic
interested parties indicate that, since the imposition of the order,
dumping of the subject merchandise has continued and is presently
persisting above the de minimis level. Id. 39-40.8 As a
result, the domestic interested parties conclude, dumping of the
subject merchandise will continue if the order were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ After finding all exporters/manufacturers were dumping the
subject merchandise at a weighted-average margins of 9.49 in the
less than fair value investigation, the Department has dealt
exclusively with Outokumpu as a lone respondent interested party in
all the subsequent administrative reviews. For the following
reviews, Outokumpu's dumping margins were as indicated: 5.64 percent
for 1986-1988, 5.41 percent for 1988-1989, 6.32 percent for 1989-
1990, 9.49 percent for 1990-1991, 8.60 percent for 1991-1992., see
footnote 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the import volumes of the subject merchandise, the
domestic interested parties note that the post-order import volume in
1987 was a mere 35.4 percent of the pre-order import volume in 1985.
Id.9 In addition, the domestic interested parties state that
imports of the subject merchandise continue to decline: just 189,000
[[Page 49446]]
pounds in 1992, no imports for 1993-1997, and in 1998 just 761 pounds.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The domestic interested parties acknowledge that during
1987-1991 the imports of the subject merchandise increased slightly;
nonetheless, they remained well below the 1985 level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the domestic interested parties urge that the
Department should find that dumping would be likely to continue if the
order is revoked because dumping margins for the subject merchandise
have existed significantly above the de minimis level over the life of
the order, because the imports of the subject merchandise immediately
and substantially declined after the issuance of the order, and because
the imports of the subject merchandise have become nearly non-existent
since 1992. The aforementioned circumstances, according to the domestic
interested parties, provide a clear indication that the Swedish brass
industry is unable to sell in the United States without dumping.
As indicated in Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and House Report at 63-64, the Department considered
whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the
issuance of the order. If companies continue dumping with the
discipline of an order in place, the Department may reasonably infer
that dumping would continue were the discipline removed. After
examining the published findings with respect to weighted-average
dumping margins in previous administrative reviews, the Department
agrees with the domestic interested parties that weighted-average
dumping margins at a level above de minimis have persisted over the
life of the order and currently remain in place for all Swedish
producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See footnote 3, supra, for the list of final determinations
of administrative reviews in which the Department found above de
minimis weighted-average margins for Swedish producers/exporters in
all periods of investigation. Also, see footnotes 7, supra for a
history of weighted-average dumping margins found for the subject
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the volume of imports before and after the issuance of the
order. The data supplied by the domestic interested parties and those
of the United States Census Bureau IM146s and the United States
International Trade Commission indicate that, since the imposition of
the order, import volumes of the subject merchandise have declined
substantially. Namely, the import volumes of the subject merchandise
declined substantially immediately following the imposition of the
order. Moreover, for the period 1994-1998, Census Bureau IM 146 data do
not reflect any annual imports of the subject merchandise.11
Therefore, the Department determines that the import volumes of the
subject merchandise decreased significantly after the issuance of the
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Although domestic interested parties state that 761 pounds
of the subject merchandise were imported in 1998, no source is given
for this figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that dumping has continued over the life of the order; that
import volumes of the subject merchandise decreased significantly after
the issuance of the order; that respondent interested parties have
waived their right to participate in this review; and that there are no
arguments and/or evidence to the contrary, the Department agrees with
the domestic interested parties' contention that the Swedish brass
industry is incapable of selling the subject merchandise in the United
States at fair value. Consequently, the Department determines that
dumping is likely to continue if the order is 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 a weighted-average dumping margin for Outokumpu
and ``all others': 9.49 percent (52 FR 819, January 9,
1987).12 We note that, to date, the Department has not
issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See footnote 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, citing the SAA at 890 and the Sunset
Policy Bulletin, the domestic interested parties state that the
Department normally will provide the Commission with the dumping
margins from the investigation because those are the only calculated
margins that reflect the behavior of exporters without the discipline
of the order in place. (See the March 3, 1999 Substantive Response of
the domestic interested parties at 45-46.) Therefore, the domestic
interested parties urge, the Department should abide by its practice,
as set forth in the regulations, and should provide to the Commission
the margin set forth in the original investigation.
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'
suggestion pertaining to the margin that is likely to prevail if the
order were revoked. Because the original 9.49 percent margin accurately
reflects the behavior of Swedish producers and exporters without the
discipline of an order in place, the Department will provide to the
Commission that margin found in the original investigation. Absent
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department sees no reason to
change its usual practice of selecting the rate from the original
investigation. We will report to the Commission the company-specific
and all others rates contained in the Final Results of Review section
of this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outokumpu (formerly Metallverken AB)....................... 9.49
All Others................................................. 9.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: August 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23044 Filed 9-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
