[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48354-48357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23038]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Color Picture Tubes
From Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore
A-122-605, A-588-609, A-580-605, A-559-601]
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Color
Picture Tubes from Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
on color picture tubes (``CPTs'') from Canada, Japan, the Republic of
Korea, and Singapore (64 FR 9970) pursuant to section 751(c) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of notices
of intent to participate and adequate substantive comments filed on
behalf of the domestic interested parties and inadequate response (in
these cases, no response) from respondent interested parties, the
Department determined to conduct expedited reviews. 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: Darla D. Brown 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, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
These reviews were 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 these antidumping duty orders is color
picture tubes from Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea (``Korea''),
and Singapore. The subject merchandise is defined as cathode ray tubes
suitable for use in the manufacture of color television receivers or
other color entertainment display devices intended for television
viewing. Where a CPT is shipped and imported together with all parts
necessary for assembly into a complete television receiver (i.e., as a
``kit''), the CPT is excluded from the scope of these orders. In other
words, a kit and a fully assembled television are a separate class or
kind of merchandise from the CPT. Accordingly, the Department
determined that, when CPTs are shipped together with other parts as
television receiver kits, they are excluded from the scope of the
order. With respect to CPTs which are imported for customs purposes as
incomplete televison assemblies, we determined that these entries are
included within the scope of these investigations unless both of the
following criteria are met: (1) the CPT is ``physically integrated''
with other television receiver components in such a manner as to
constitute one inseparable amalgam and (2) the CPT does not constitute
a significant portion of the cost or value of the items being
imported.1 Such merchandise was classifiable under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8540.11.00.10,
8540.11.00.20, 8540.11.00.30, 8540.11.00.40, 8540.11.00.50 and
8540.11.00.60. However, due to changes in the HTS, the subject
merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS items 8540.11.10,
8540.11.24, 8540.11.28, 8540.11.30, 8540.11.44, 8540.11.48, and
8540.11.50. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and
customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment to Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Color Picture Tubes
From Japan, 53 FR 430 (January 7, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These reviews cover imports from all manufacturers and exporters of
CPTs from Canada, Japan, Korea, and Singapore.
History of the Orders
Canada
The Department published its final affirmative determination of
sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') with respect to imports of
CPTs from Canada on November 18, 1987 (52 FR 44161). In this
determination, the Department published a weighted-average dumping
margin for one company as well as an ``all others'' rate. These margins
were subsequently amended when the Department issued its antidumping
duty order on CPTs from Canada on January 7, 1998 (53 FR
429).2 The Department has conducted no administrative
reviews of this order since its imposition. The order remains in effect
for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise from
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
On November 18, 1987, the Department issued its affirmative final
determination of sales at LTFV regarding CPTs from Japan (52 FR 44171).
In this determination, the Department published weighted-average
dumping margins for four companies and an ``all others'' rate. Two of
the company-specific margins as well as the ``all others'' margin were
later amended when the antidumping order on CPTs from Japan was
published in the Federal Register on January 7, 1988 (53 FR 430). Since
the order was issued, the Department has conducted two administrative
reviews with respect to CPTs from Japan.3 In both the first
and second administrative reviews, the Department calculated one
company-specific margin and an ``all others'' rate. The order remains
in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject
merchandise from Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Color Picture Tubes from Japan; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 37915 (September 14,
1990), and Color Picture Tubes from Japan; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 34201 (June 25, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea
The Department published its affirmative final determination of
sales
[[Page 48355]]
at LTFV with regard to CPTs from Korea on November 18, 1987 (52 FR
44186). In this determination, the Department published weighted-
average dumping margin for one company as well as an ``all other''
rate. The antidumping duty order was issued on January 7, 1988 (53 FR
431). The Department has since conducted one administrative review of
the order with respect to CPTs from Korea.4 In this review,
the Department calculated two company-specific margins, one of which
was later amended, as well as an ``all others'' rate. The order remains
in effect for all Korean manufacturers and exporters of the subject
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Color Picture Tubes from South Korea; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 19084 (April 25,
1991), as amended by Color Picture Tubes from South Korea; Amended
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 29215
(June 26, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
On November 18, 1987, the Department issued its final affirmative
determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports of CPTs from
Singapore (52 FR 44190). In this determination, the Department
published a weighted-average dumping margin for one company as well as
an ``all others'' rate. Since the imposition of the order, no
administrative reviews of the antidumping order on CPTs Singapore have
been conducted. The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and
exporters of the subject merchandise from Singapore.
On March 7, 1991, the Department published a negative final
determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty orders on CPTs
from Canada, Japan, Korea, and Singapore (56 FR 9667).
Background
On March 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on CPTs from Canada, Japan, Korea, and
Singapore (64 FR 9970), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received Notices of Intent to Participate, in each of the
four sunset reviews, on behalf of Philips Display Components Company,
Thomson Americas Tube Operations, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and the International Union of Electronic,
Electrical, Salaried, Machine & Furniture Workers (AFL-CIO/CLC)
(collectively, ``domestic interested parties''), on March 16, 1999,
within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset
Regulations. Pursuant to sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, the
domestic interested parties claimed interested party status as U.S.
manufacturers and unions whose workers are engaged in the production of
domestic like products. Moreover, the domestic interested parties
stated that both the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
and the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried,
Machine & Furniture Workers (AFL-CIO/CLC) were petitioners in the
original investigation. The Department received complete substantive
responses from the domestic interested parties on March 31, 1999,
within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under
section 351.218(d)(3)(i). On March 22, 1999, the Department received an
untimely notice of intent to participate on behalf of Sharp Electronics
Corporation in the case involving CPTs from Japan. We did not receive a
substantive response from any respondent interested party to these
proceedings. On March 30, 1999, the Department received a waiver of
participation on behalf of the Electronic Industries Association of
Korea. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the
Department determined to conduct expedited, 120-day reviews of these
orders.
The Department determined that the sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on CPTs from Canada, Japan, Korea, and
Singapore 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 July 6, 1999, the Department
extended the time limit for completion of the final results of these
reviews until not later than August 30, 1999, in accordance with
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Solid Urea From Armenia, Solid Urea From Belarus, Solid
Urea From Estonia, Solid Urea From Lithuania, Solid Urea From
Romania, Solid Urea From Russia, Solid Urea From Tajikistan, Solid
Urea From Turkmenistan, Solid Urea From Ukraine, Solid Urea From
Uzbekistan, Color Picture Tubes From Canada, Color Picture Tubes
From Japan, Color Picture Tubes From Korea (South), Color Picture
Tubes From Singapore: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of
Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 36333 (July 6, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in
making these determinations, 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 margins of dumping
likely to prevail if the orders were revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are discussed
below. In addition, the domestic interested parties' comments with
respect to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of
the margins 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 it normally 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 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 the order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In these instant
reviews, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any
respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of
the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of
[[Page 48356]]
participation. Further, we received a waiver of participation from the
Electronic Industries Association of Korea.
In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties
argue that the substantial decline in the volume of imports of CPTs
from the subject countries following the issuance of the orders
demonstrates the inability of the producers from subject countries to
sell in the U.S. market in any significant volume without dumping. The
domestic interested parties argue further that revocation of the
antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or
recurrence of dumping by Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and Singaporean
producers/manufacturers. They support this argument with evidence in
the form of tables showing that, since imposition of the orders,
respondents have generally reduced their sales to the United States
(see March 31, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested
Parties at Attachment 2). Therefore, they assert, were the antidumping
orders revoked, it is likely that Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and
Singaporean producers would need to dump in order to sell their subject
color pictures tubes in any significant quantities in the United States
(see id. at 17).
Canada
With respect to subject merchandise from Canada, the domestic
interested parties maintain that in the year the order was imposed,
1988, imports from Canada fell from approximately 219,000 units the
year before to just over 80,000 units (see id. at 19 and Attachment 2).
They also argue that, in the three years following the imposition of
the order (1988-1990), average import volumes of the subject
merchandise were almost 80 percent lower than in the three years
preceding the final determination of sales at LTFV (1984-1986) (see id.
at 18-19).
Moreover, the domestic interested parties point out that dumping
margins above de minimis remain in place for one Canadian company.
Japan
According to the domestic interested parties, the imposition of the
antidumping duty order had a dramatic effect on subject import volumes
from Japan. They indicate that in the years following the imposition of
the order, imports of the subject merchandise from Japan declined by
almost 70 percent. Moreover, they assert, import volumes of the subject
CPTs from Japan have remained low relative to the pre-order levels. The
domestic interested parties also argue that dumping margins remain in
place for at least one Japanese producer of the subject merchandise. In
sum, the domestic interested parties maintain, the dramatic decline in
import volumes following the imposition of the order, in conjunction
with the fact that only one Japanese respondent has ever requested an
administrative review of the original dumping margins, provides clear
evidence that the Japanese producers are incapable of selling at fair
value in the U.S. market and that revocation of the current order would
result in continued dumping and massive increases in Japanese import
volumes (see id. at 20).
Korea
With respect to imports of the subject merchandise from Korea, the
domestic interested parties assert that imports declined significantly
after the imposition of the order. In fact, the domestic interested
parties argue, post-order imports from Korea averaged just 2.9 percent
of their pre-order levels (see id. at 21). Furthermore, the domestic
interested parties argue, since 1988, imports of CPTs from Korea have
been virtually non-existent and annual volumes have never risen to even
five percent of their pre-order levels. Therefore, the domestic
interested parties assert, the minimal volumes of imports of CPTs in
the period since the order was imposed indicate that the Koreans are
incapable of selling the subject merchandise in the United States at
fair value (see id. at 21).
Singapore
The domestic interested parties state that imports of the subject
CPTs from Singapore also declined significantly following the
imposition of the order. In fact, the domestic interested parties
argue, while U.S. imports from Singapore averaged approximately 139,000
units annually in the three years prior to the imposition of the order
(1984-1986), in the three years following the imposition of the order
(1988-1990) such imports averaged just 810 units annually (see id. at
21 and Attachment 2).
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 to
dump with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were
removed. As discussed above, dumping margins above de minimis continue
to exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from Canada, Japan,
Korea, and Singapore.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considers the volume of imports before and after issuance of the order.
As outlined in each respective section above, the domestic interested
parties argue that a significant decline in the volume of imports of
the subject merchandise from Canada, Japan, Korea, and Singapore since
the imposition of the orders provides further evidence that dumping
would continue if the orders were revoked. In their substantive
responses, the domestic interested parties provided statistics
demonstrating the decline in import volumes of CPTs from Canada, Japan,
Korea, and Singapore (see March 31, 1999, Substantive Response of the
Domestic Interested Parties at Attachment 2). Using the Department's
statistics, including IM146 reports, on imports of the subject
merchandise from these countries, we agree with the domestic interested
parties' assertions that imports of the subject merchandise fell
sharply after the orders were imposed and, in most cases, never
regained pre-order volumes.
As noted above, in conducting its sunset reviews, the Department
considers the weighted-average dumping margins and volume of imports
when determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order would
lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Based on this
analysis, the Department finds that the existence of dumping margins
above de minimis levels and a reduction in export volumes after the
issuance of the orders is highly probative of the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate above a de
minimis level continues in effect for exports of the subject
merchandise by all known Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and Singaporean
manufacturers/exporters. Therefore, given that dumping has continued
over the life of the orders, import volumes declined significantly
after the imposition of the orders, respondent parties waived
participation, 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
normally will 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
[[Page 48357]]
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, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in any
of these four cases.
In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties
recommended that, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department provide to the Commission the company-specific margins from
the original investigations. Moreover, regarding companies not reviewed
in the original investigation, the domestic interested parties
suggested that the Department report the ``all others'' rates included
in the original investigations.
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties. The
Department finds that the margins calculated in the original
investigation are probative of the behavior of Canadian, Japanese,
Korean, and Singaporean producers/exporters if the orders were revoked
as they are the only margins which reflect their behavior absent the
discipline of the order. Therefore, the Department will report to the
Commission the company-specific and all others rates from the original
investigations as 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Electronics Industries Canada, Inc.............. 0.63
All Others................................................. 0.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi, Ltd............................................... 22.29
Matsushita Electronics Corporation......................... 27.46
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation............................ 1.05
Toshiba Corporation........................................ 33.50
All Others................................................. 27.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electron Devices Company, Ltd...................... 1.91
All Others................................................. 1.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi Electronic Devices, Pte., Ltd...................... 5.33
All Others................................................. 5.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
These five-year (``sunset'') reviews and notices 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. 99-23038 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
