[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48351-48354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23046]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-603; A-427-602; A-580-603]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Brass Sheet and Strip
From Brazil, France and Korea
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: brass
sheet and strip from Brazil, France and Korea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
on brass sheet and strip from Brazil, France and Korea (64 FR 4840)
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the
Act''). On the basis of the notices of intent to participate and
adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested
parties and inadequate responses (in these cases, no responses) 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 duty 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: Kathryn B. McCormick 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-
5050 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
These orders cover shipments of coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse
wound), and cut-to-length brass sheet and strip (not leaded or tinned)
from Brazil, France and Korea. The subject merchandise has, regardless
of width, a solid rectangular cross section over 0.0006 inches (0.15
millimeters) through 0.1888 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished
thickness or gauge. The chemical composition of the covered products is
defined in the Copper Development Association (``C.D.A.'') 200 Series
or the Unified Numbering System (``U.N.S.'') C2000; these reviews do
not cover products with chemical compositions that are defined by
anything other than C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. The merchandise is
currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') item
numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00. The HTS item numbers are provided
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive.
These reviews cover all producers and exporters of brass sheet and
strip from Brazil, France and Korea.
History of the Orders
In the original investigations, covering the period October 1,
1985, through March 31, 1986, the Department determined the average
margin for Eluma Corporation, the Brazilian company investigated, to be
40.62 percent ad valorem (52 FR 1214; January 12, 1987). On March 6,
1987, the Department determined the weighted-average margin for
Trefimetaux S.A., the French company investigated, to be 42.24 percent
ad valorem (52 FR 6995). There was one scope ruling (59 FR 54888;
November 2, 1994) in which the Department determined that brass circles
from Brazil that were imported for use in the production of vent valves
for air ventilation in boiler systems were outside the scope of the
order (id.). There have been no administrative reviews of the Brazilian
and French orders.
On January 12, 1987, the Department determined the weighted-average
margin for Poongsan Metal Corporation (``Poongsan''), the Korean
company investigated, to be 7.17 percent ad valorem (52 FR 1215). In
the only administrative review of this order, covering the period
August 22, 1986, through December 31, 1987,1 the Department
determined that a margin of 7.34 percent exists for Poongsan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Brass Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 33257
(August 14, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The orders cited above remain in effect for all Brazilian, French
and Korean producers and exporters, respectively, of the subject
merchandise.
Background
On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and strip from Brazil, France
and Korea (64 FR 4840), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate in each of these
reviews on behalf of Heyco Metals, Inc. (``Heyco''), Hussey Copper Ltd.
(``Hussey''), Olin Corporation-Brass Group (``Olin''), Outokumpu
American Brass (``Outokumpu''), PMX Industries,
[[Page 48352]]
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-CLC) (hereinafter, collectively ``domestic interested
parties'') on February 16, 1999, within the deadline specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.2 In
their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties claimed
interested-party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act as
domestic brass mills, rerollers, and unions engaged in the production
of brass sheet and strip. Further, with the exception of Heyco and PMX,
all of the aforementioned parties were the original petitioners in
these cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ PMX Industries, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Poongsan Metal Corporation, the respondent covered by the Korean
antidumping order. PMX indicated that it does not support the
continuation of the antidumping duty order against Korea. See
Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties, March 3,
1999, at 3 (footnote 2) and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received complete substantive responses from domestic interested
parties for each of these reviews on March 3, 1999, within the 30-day
deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section
351.218(d)(3)(i); we did not receive a substantive response from any
government or respondent interested party in these proceedings. 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 brass sheet and strip from Brazil, France
and Korea are extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with
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 June 7, 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.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 these reviews to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping 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 investigations 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 duty orders, and it 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 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 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 these instant reviews, 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 responses, the domestic interested parties
argue that revocation of the orders will likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping of brass sheet and strip from Brazil, France and
Korea (see March 3, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic interested
parties for Brazil, France and Korea at 34, 37-38 and 41-42,
respectively). With respect to whether dumping of subject merchandise
continued at any level above de minimis, the domestic interested
parties do not comment. However, they note that the Department has not
conducted any administrative reviews of the orders covering subject
merchandise from Brazil and France.
With respect to whether imports of subject merchandise ceased after
the issuance of the orders, the domestic interested parties assert
that, although imports of Brazilian and French brass sheet and strip
dropped significantly, they have not been eliminated since the
imposition of dumping duties under their orders in 1988 and 1987,
respectively, and continue to remain at a very low levels (see March 3,
1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties for Brazil,
France and Korea at 34, 37-38 and 41-42, respectively). Korean imports
have been almost non-existent since the 1986 order, and annual volumes
have never risen to a level even close to one percent of their pre-
petition average (id.).
With respect to whether dumping was eliminated after the issuance
of the orders and import volumes declined significantly, the domestic
interested parties, citing Commerce IM146 reports, assert that, for
each of these countries, the imposition of the order was followed by a
significant decrease in the average volume of imports. In the three
years following the petitioners' filings, the volume of Brazilian
imports was 97 percent lower than that of the pre-petition period (see
March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at
34); for France, the
[[Page 48353]]
volume fell by 99.4 percent (id. at 37-38); and Korean post-order
imports decreased by 83 percent of their pre-petition levels (id. at
41-42).
In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argue that the
Department should determine that there is a likelihood of continuation
or recurrence of dumping in each of these cases if the orders were
revoked because dumping margins have existed over the lives of the
orders and continue to exist at above de minimis levels for all
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise, and because imports
of the subject merchandise have declined dramatically since the
imposition of the orders,
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
dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were
removed. Dumping margins presently remain in place for producers and
exporters in each of these cases and, therefore, dumping margins above
de minimis levels continue to exist for shipments of the subject
merchandise from all Brazilian, French and Korean producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the import volumes before and after issuance of the orders.
The import statistics provided by the domestic industry in each of
these cases demonstrate that import volumes of the subject merchandise
declined dramatically immediately following the imposition of the
orders and continue to remain at very low levels.
Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of
dumping margins after the issuance of these orders is highly probative
of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit
rates above a de minimis level continue in effect for exports of the
subject merchandise for all producers and exporters. Therefore, given
that dumping has continued over the life of the orders, imports
declined significantly, respondent interested parties have waived their
right to participate in these reviews before the Department, and absent
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that
dumping is likely to continue if these orders were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states 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).
In its November 10, 1986, final determination of sales at less than
fair value, the Department published a weighted-average dumping margin
for one Brazilian producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Eluma
Corporation, of 40.62 percent (51 FR 40831). The Department also
published an ``all others'' rate of 40.62 percent. Similarly, the
Department published a dumping margin for one French producer/exporter
of the subject merchandise, Trefimetaux S.A., of 42.24 percent (52 FR
812, January 9, 1987), and an ``all others'' rate, also 42.24 percent.
In its final determination of sales at less than fair value, the
Department published a weighted-average dumping margin for one Korean
producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Poongsan Metal
Corporation, of 7.17 percent (51 FR 40833, November 10, 1986), and an
``all others'' rate, also 7.17 percent. In the only administrative
review of this case, the margin was revised upward to 7.34 percent for
Poongsan (54 FR 33257, August 14, 1989). To date, the Department has
not issued any duty-absorption findings in these cases.
With respect to the orders on Brazil and France, the domestic
interested parties argue that the Department, consistent with the SAA
and the Sunset Policy Bulletin should provide to the Commission the
weighted-average margin from the original investigations as the
magnitude of dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked
(see March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties
at 46). Moreover, the domestic interested parties, citing the SAA at
890 and the Sunset Policy Bulletin, note that the Department normally
will provide the Commission with the dumping margins ``from the
investigation, because that is the only calculated rate that reflects
the behavior of exporters * * * without the discipline of the order * *
* in place.''
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'
arguments concerning the choice of the margin rates to report to the
Commission. Since there have been no administrative reviews of the
orders on Brazil and France and considering that dumping has continued
over the life of the orders, the rates from the original investigations
are the only ones available to the Department.
With respect to Korean exporters and producers, the Department
disagrees with the domestic interested parties' argument that, since
Poongsan has continued to dump at the slightly higher margin of 7.34
percent, the more recent margin is the appropriate rate to present to
the Commission. The Sunset Policy Bulletin states that a company may
choose to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase market
share. As a result, increasing margins may be more representative of a
company's behavior in the absence of an order. 4 In this
case, Korean imports have been declining since the imposition of the
order. Additionally, the domestic interested parties do not argue that
Poongsan is attempting to increase its market share or that the
company's declining imports indicate its attempt to increase market
share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Sunset Policy Bulletin at section II.B.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we determine that the margins determined in the original
investigations are probative of the behavior of Brazilian, French and
Korean producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip if the orders
were revoked.
Final Results of Reviews
As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation
of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil:
Eluma Corporation......................................... 40.62
All Others................................................ 40.62
France:
Trefimetaux, S.A.......................................... 42.24
All Others................................................ 42.24
Korea:
Poongsan Metal Corporation................................ 7.17
All Others................................................ 7.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 48354]]
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing five-year (``sunset'') reviews and
notices 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. 99-23046 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
