[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49765-49767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23041]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-704]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip
From Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet
and Strip from Japan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Japan (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, 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 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 14, 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
The merchandise subject to this order is brass sheet and strip,
other than leaded and tinned, from Japan. 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 the 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 Japan was
published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30454). In
that order, the Department estimated that the weighted-average dumping
margins for Nippon Mining Co., Ltd. (``Nippon''), Sambo Copper Alloy
Co., Ltd. (``Sambo''), Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd. (``Mitsubishi''),
Kobe Steel (``Kobe'') (hereinafter collectively referred to as
``respondent interested parties''), and ``all-others'' were 57.98,
13.20, 57.98, 57.98, and 45.72 percent, respectively. Since that time,
the Department has completed no administrative review.1 The
order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the
subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On one occasion, the Department initiated an administrative
review upon a request by respondent interested parties. The said
review, however, was terminated because respondent interested
parties subsequently withdrew their request for review.
Consequently, the Department terminated the review, see Brass Sheet
and Strip from Japan; Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 55 FR 5641 (February 16, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Japan (64 FR
4840), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a
Notice of Intent to Participate for each of these findings on behalf of
Heyco Metals, Inc. (``Heyco''), Hussey Copper Ltd. (``Hussey''), Olin
Corporation--Brass Group (``Olin''), Outokumpu American Brass
(``OAB''), 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 in the production of
subject brass sheet and strip in the United States.
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
[[Page 49766]]
established after the original petitions were filed. The domestic party
also notes that OAB was formerly known as American Brass Company.
We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent
interested parties in 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.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 domestic interested
parties' comments on the Adequacy of Responses and the
Appropriateness of Expedited Sunset Review at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for
completion of the final results of this review until not later than
August 30, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act,
based upon its finding under section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) that, as a
transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 1995), the
sunset review of the order on Brass Sheet and Strip from Japan is
extraordinarily complicated.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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, 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 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.
In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties
argue that revocation of the order will likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping of brass sheet and strip from Japan (see March 3,
1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties at 40-41).
In support of their argument, domestic interested parties compare
three-year averages of import volumes of the subject merchandise before
and after the issuance of the order: during 1984-1986, imports of the
subject merchandise averaged 20 million pounds; whereas, during 1989-
1991, the import volumes reached, on the average, just 1.3 million
pounds; i.e., average annual imports of the subject merchandise
declined by 93.5 percent after the imposition of the order.
Furthermore, domestic interested parties argue, the import volumes of
the subject merchandise continue to remain very low: since the
imposition of the order, annual Japanese exports of the subject
merchandise have never reached one-quarter of the volume of 1986.
In addition, domestic interested parties point out that since the
inception of the order, the margins found in the original investigation
have continued to prevail because no administrative review of the order
has been completed.\4\ In other words, as domestic interested parties
further state, dumping of the subject merchandise is continuing above
the de minimis level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See footnote 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argue that the
Department should determine that continuation or recurrence of dumping
is likely if the order is revoked because dumping margins have existed
over the life of the order and continue to exist at above de minimis
levels for all producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, and
because imports of the subject merchandise have declined dramatically
since the imposition of the order. The domestic interested parties
denote, these two factors are probative of the fact that the Japanese
producers/exporters are 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 the House Report at 63-64, the Department considers
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. Because there
is no 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 Japanese producers and exporters
of brass sheet and strip.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See footnote 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the
order. The data supplied by the domestic interested parties and those
of the United States Census Bureau (reported in form IM146) and
[[Page 49767]]
the United Stated International Trade Commission indicate that, since
the imposition of the order, the 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'a drop of 93.5 percent. Moreover, for the
entire period of 1989-1998, annual imports of the subject merchandise
have never reached one-quarter of the 1986 volume. Therefore, the
Department determines that the import volumes of the subject
merchandise decreased significantly after the issuance of the order.
Given that dumping has continued over the life of the order; that
the 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 respondent
interested parties are 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 to be
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 dumping margins for four
Japanese producers/exporters of the subject merchandise: Nippon
Mining--57.98, Sambo Copper Alloy--13.30, Mitsubishi Shindo--57.98, and
Kobe Steel--57.98, all-others--45.72 percent (53 FR 23296, June 21,
1988). We note that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty
absorption findings in this case.
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 that the Department should abide by its
practice, as set forth in the regulations, and should provide to the
Commission the margins set forth in the original investigation.
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'
suggestion pertaining to the margins that are likely to prevail if the
order were revoked. As correctly noted by the domestic interested
parties, the Department normally will provide to the Commission the
margins found in the original investigation. Moreover, since there has
been no administrative review of this order, the margins from the
original investigation are the only ones available to the Department.
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 these reviews, the Department finds that revocation
of the antidumping orders would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nippon Mining Co........................................... 57.98
Sambo Copper Alloy Co., Ltd................................ 13.30
Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd................................ 57.98
Kobe Steel, Ltd............................................ 57.98
All Others................................................. 45.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 99-23041 Filed 9-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
