[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50271-50273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24195]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-506]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel
Cooking Ware From 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 review: porcelain-
on-steel cooking ware from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
porcelain-on-steel (``POS'') cooking ware from the People's Republic of
China (``China'') 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 a
domestic interested party, and inadequate response (in this case, no
response) from respondent interested parties, the Department is
conducting 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 level
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. and
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review is 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
Imports covered by this order are shipments of POS cooking ware
from China, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. The merchandise
is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
item 7323.94.00. The HTS subheading is provided for convenience and
U.S. Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
In response to a request from CGS International, on January 30,
1991, the Department, clarified that high quality, hand finished
cookware, including the small basin, medium basin, large basin, small
colander, large colander, 8'' bowl, 6'' bowl, mugs, ash tray, napkin
rings, utensil holder and utensils, ladle, cream & sugar, and mixing
bowls are properly considered kitchen ware and are therefore, outside
the scope of the order. Further, the Department clarified that CGS
International's casserole, 12-cup coffee pot, 6-cup coffee pot,
roasting pan, oval roaster, and butter warmer are within the scope of
the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 56 FR 19833 (April 30, 1991)).
In response to a request from Texsport, on August 8, 1990, the
Department determined that camping sets, with the exception of the cups
and plates included in those sets, are within the scope of the order
(see Notice of Scope Rulings, 55 FR 43020 (October 25, 1990)).
History of the Order
On October 10, 1986, the Department issued a final determination of
sales at less-than-fair value on imports of POS cooking ware from
China.1 The antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from
China was issued by the Department on December 2, 1986.2 In
the Department's investigation of the subject merchandise a dumping
margin of 66.65 percent was assigned to China National Light Industrial
Products Imports and Export Corporation. In addition an ``all others''
rate of 66.65 percent was assigned. The Department has conducted
several administrative reviews since the issuance of this order.
3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's
Republic of China; Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair
Value, 51 FR 36419 (October 10, 1986).
\2\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's
Republic of China; Antidumping Duty Order; 51 FR 43414 (December 2,
1986).
\3\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 55 FR 46850 (November 7, 1990); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking
Ware from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 11632 (March 29,
1990); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56
FR 55891 (October 30, 1991); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from
the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 57 FR 30717 (July 10, 1992); Porcelain-on-
Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 32757 (June
17, 1997); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 62 FR 54825 (October 22, 1997); and Porcelain-on-Steel
Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 27262 (May 18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50272]]
The antidumping duty order remains in effect for all producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise.
Background
On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from China pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act. On February 16, 1999 we received a Notice of
Intent to Participate on behalf of a domestic interested party,
Columbian Home Products, LLC (``CHP''), within the deadline specified
in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. On March 3,
1999, the Department received a complete substantive response from CHP
within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. CHP claimed interested party status under section
771(9)(C) of the Act, as a U.S. producer of POS cooking ware. CHP
asserts that it is the sole domestic producer of POS cooking ware.
We did not receive any response from respondent interested parties
to this proceeding. As a result, and in accordance with our regulations
(19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)) we are conducting an expedited review.
On June 7, 1999. the Department determined that the sunset review
of the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from 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). (See section 751)(c)(6)(C) of the Act). In
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department
extended the time limit for completion of final results of this review
until no later than August 30, 1999.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of
Five-Year (``Sunset'') 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)(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 order is
revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.
In addition, CHP's 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. The Department clarified that determinations
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally
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 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
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 its substantive response, CHP argues that dumping would be
likely to continue or recur if the antidumping duty order on POS
cooking ware from China were revoked. CHP argues that the relationship
between dumping margins and import volumes strongly suggests that
dumping will continue at significant margins if the order were revoked.
CHP asserts that in the seven administrative reviews completed by
the Department, dumping margins have consistently been above de
minimis. Further, CHP argues that with few exceptions, the margins
determined for Chinese exporters in the administrative reviews have
remained at 66.65 percent--the rate determined in the original
investigation.
With respect to imports of the subject merchandise from China, CHP
asserts that imports decreased immediately after the issuance of the
order, from 1.8 million units in 1985 to 0.4 million units in 1987. CHP
states that imports have been increasing in recent years but argues
that only in 1993 and 1996 did imports exceed the 1985 pre-order level
of imports. Finally, CHP argues that imports decreased significantly in
1997 and 1998.
In conclusion, CHP argues that a decrease in import volume after
the issuance of the order, coupled with the continuation of dumping
margins above de minimis levels, is probative that producers and
exporters of POS cooking ware from China will continue to dump if the
order were revoked. Therefore, CHP argues that the Department should
determine that there is a likelihood of the continuation of dumping of
POS cooking ware from China if the order were to be revoked.
As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, existence of dumping margins
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, the Department may reasonably infer
that dumping would continue if the discipline of the order were
revoked. A dumping margin above de minimis continues to exist for
shipments of the subject merchandise from China National Light
Industrial Products Imports and Export Corporation. Therefore, given
that dumping above de minimis has continued over the life of the order,
that respondent interested parties waived their right to participate in
the instant review, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary,
the Department determines that dumping would likely continue if the
[[Page 50273]]
order were revoked for POS cooking ware from China.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department will provide
to the Commission the company-specific margin from the investigation
because that is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of
exporters without the discipline of an order. 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.) We note that, to
date, we have not issued any duty absorption finding in this case.
In its substantive response, CHP urges the Department to follow the
guidance of the SAA and its stated policy and provide the Commission
margins from the original investigation of 66.65 percent for China
National Light Industrial Products Import and Export Corporation and
the PRC-wide rate of 66.65 percent.
We agree with CHP's assertion that we should report to the
Commission the rate from the original investigation. As noted in the
Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin, margins from the original
investigation are the only calculated rates that reflect the behavior
of exporters without the discipline of the order in place. The
Department, in this case, finds this rate is the most probative of the
behavior of this company if the finding were revoked absent information
and argument to the contrary. Therefore, we will report to the
Commission the margins contained in the Final Results of Review of this
notice.
Final Results of 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 below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Light Industrial Products/Import and Export 66.65
Corporation...............................................
Country-wide rate.......................................... 66.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 27, 1999.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-24195 Filed 9-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
