[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48348-48351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23042]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-601]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip
From Italy
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet
and Strip from Italy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Italy (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, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 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 Italy. 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 7409.21.00.50, 7409.21.00.75, 7409.21.00.90,
7409.29.00.50, 7409.29.00.75, and 7409.29.0090. 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 Italy was
published in the Federal Register on March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6997). In
that order, the Department estimated that the weighted-average dumping
margins for all entries of brass sheet and strip from Italy was 12.08
percent.\1\ While amending the order, on April 8, 1987 (52 FR 11299),
the Department lowered the weighted-average margin for La Metalli
Industries, SpA (``LMI'') and ``all-others'' to 9.74
percent.2 In another
[[Page 48349]]
amendment, on May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23272), the Department further
lowered the weighted-average margin to 5.44 percent.3 Since
that time, the Department has completed three administrative
reviews.4 The order remains in effect for all manufacturers
and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the original determination, the only subject of the
investigation was La Metalli Industriale SpA (``LMI'') because,
according to the Department, LMI represented ``virtually all
exports'' of the subject merchandise to the United States, see Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brass Sheet and
Strip From Italy, 52 FR 816 (January 9, 1987).
\2\ See Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy and Amendment to
Antidumping Duty Order, 52 FR 11299 (April 8, 1987). This downward
adjustment was due to ministerial errors.
\3\ See Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Amendment of Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance
with Decision Upon Remand: Brass Sheet and Strip from Italy, 56 FR
23272 (May 21, 1991). This amendment reflects a decision by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
\4\ See, Certain Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 9325 (March 17,
1992); and Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, November 23, 1992 (57 FR
54969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping order on brass sheet and strip from Italy (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''), 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.
In their Notice of Intent to Participate, while indicating that
Heyco, Hussey, Olin, and Revere are not related to a foreign producer
or a foreign exporter under section 771(4)(B) of the Act, the domestic
interested parties acknowledge that OAB is related to Outokumpu Copper
Strip BV and Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products AB (``OBV''), a Dutch and
Swedish producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, respectively; PMX
is related to Poongsan Corp., a Korean producer of the domestic like
products; and Wieland is related to Wieland Werke Metallwerke AG, a
German producer and exporter of the domestic like products. Moreover,
American Brass, PMX, and Wieland stipulate that they have had
experience of importing the subject merchandise and/or the domestic
like products.
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 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.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The domestic interested parties filed comments, pertaining
to the Department's decision to conduct an expedited (120-day)
sunset review for the present review, in which the domestic parties
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 Italy 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.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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
[[Page 48350]]
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
contend that revocation of the order will likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping of brass sheet and strip from Italy (see March
3, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties at 31).
In support of their argument, the domestic interested parties point
out, first, that import volumes of the subject merchandise have
declined dramatically since the issuance of the order, and that dumping
of the subject merchandise has continued and is presently persisting
above the de minimis level, id. 39-40. As a result, the domestic
interested parties conclude, dumping will continue were the order
revoked.
Next, with respect to import volumes of the subject merchandise,
the domestic interested parties compare a three-year (1983-1985)
average import volume prior to the issuance of the order with a three-
year (1987-1989) average import volume subsequent to the order: 7.6
million pounds verses 1.4 million pounds--an 81.5 percent decline. In
addition, the domestic interested parties emphasize that since 1988,
imports of the subject merchandise have never exceeded 810,000 pounds
annually, id.
In conclusion, the domestic interested parties urge that the
Department should find dumping would be likely to continue if the order
is revoked because dumping margins have existed significantly above the
de minimis level over the life of the order 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 aforementioned two circumstances, according to the domestic
interested parties, provide a strong indication that the Italian
producers/exporters are unable to sell in the United States without
dumping; namely, Italian producers/exporters are likely to dump were
the order revoked.
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 Italian
producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See footnote 4, supra, for the list of final determinations
of administrative reviews in which the Department found above de
minimis weighted-average margins for Italian producers/exporters in
all periods of investigation. Also, see domestic interest parties
substantive response at 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the import volumes of the subject merchandise, the
data supplied by the domestic interested parties and those of the
United States Census Bureau IM146s and the United Stated International
Trade Commission indicate that, since the imposition of the order, the
import volumes of the subject merchandise have declined substantially:
the import volume in 1987 was just over 3 million pounds, down from
over 7 million pounds in 1986. In 1988, the import volume of the
subject merchandise fell even further, to slightly over 800,000 pounds.
Moreover, for the period (1994-1998), although imports of the subject
merchandise fluctuated, the import volumes have never risen in any
substantial amount and continue to remain relatively low. 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 Italian
producers/exporters are incapable of selling a substantial quantity of
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 all entries
of brass sheet and strip from Italy: 12.08 percent, 52 FR 816 (January
9, 1987). This rate was amended twice: first to 9.74 percent and then
amended once again to 5.44 percent.8 There have also been
three administrative reviews.9 We note that, to date, the
Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy and Amendment to
Antidumping Duty Order, 52 FR 11299 (April 8, 1987); and Amendment
to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance with Decision Upon
Remand: Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy, 56 FR 23272 (May 21,
1991).
\9\ See footnote 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While citing section II.B.2 of Sunset Policy Bulletin, which allows
the Department to choose a more recently calculated margin if a
particular company increases its dumping in order to maintain or
increase market share, the domestic interested parties urge the
Department to supply the Commission the margins from the most recent
administrative review: 9.49 percent for both LMI and all-others.
The Department disagrees with the domestic interested parties'
suggestion that the Department should select a more recently calculated
margin from the most recent administrative review. The continuous and
rather consistent decline of the import volumes of the subject
merchandise, since the issuance of the order, evinces that Italian
producers/exporters have not really attempted to enhance their market
share in the United States by increasing dumping. Furthermore, the
fluctuations that have occurred in import volumes since the imposition
of the order simply manifest a downward trend rather than illustrate a
concerted attempt by Italian producers/exporters to expand market share
by increasing dumping. Therefore, the Department sees no reason to
deviate from its normal pattern of selecting the rate from the original
[[Page 48351]]
investigation and, consequently, determines that the rate from the
original investigation, as amended, is the proper one to report to the
Commission as the rate that is likely to prevail if the order is
revoked. Therefore, the Department 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
La Metalli Industriale SpA................................. 5.44
All Others................................................. 5.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 99-23042 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
