[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48369-48372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23047]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[C-427-603]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip
from France
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet
and Strip from France.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty
order on brass sheet and strip from France (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
comments filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, as well as
inadequate response (in this case, no response) from respondent
interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited
(120 day) review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that
termination of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net
countervailable subsidy and the nature of the subsidy are identified 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, US Department of Commerce, 14th Street &
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 of
the Act. The Department's procedures for the
[[Page 48370]]
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 coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse
wound), and cut-to-length brass sheet and strip (not leaded or tinned)
from France. 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; this review does not cover
products with chemical compositions that are defined by anything other
than the 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 U.S. Customs purposes. The written description remains
dispositive.
This review covers all producers and exporters of brass sheet and
strip from France.
History of the Order
The Government of France, Pechiney S.A. (``Pechiney'') and
Trefimeteaux S.A (``Trefimeteaux'') participated in the original
investigation. Two programs were found to confer subsidies: (1)
Government Equity Infusion and Other Financial Assistance to
Trefimetaux, and (2) Certain Financing from Credit National.
The Department published its final affirmative countervailing duty
determination on brass sheet and strip from France in the Federal
Register on January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1218) and issued the countervailing
duty order on March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6996). The Department determined the
estimated net subsidy to be 7.24 percent and the order remains in
effect for all producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip from
France. The Department has not conducted any administrative reviews
since the issuance of the order.
Background
On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip from France (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 (``Outokumpu'')
(formerly American Brass Company), 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-
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. 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).
The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status
under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) and (D) as well as 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. With the exception
of Heyco, all of the aforementioned parties were original petitioners
in this case.
We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent
interested party to this proceeding. Pursuant to section
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulation, this constitutes a waiver
of participation. 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.
The Department determined that the sunset review of the
countervailing duty investigation on brass sheet and strip from France
is 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 this review until not later than
August 30, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the
Act.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 is
conducting this review to determine whether termination of the
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. Section 752(b) of the Act
provides that, in making this determination, the Department shall
consider the net countervailable subsidy determined in the
investigation and subsequent reviews, and whether any change in the
program which gave rise to the net countervailable subsidy has occurred
and is likely to affect that net countervailable subsidy. Pursuant to
section 752(b)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide to the
International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the net
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked. In
addition, consistent with section 752(a)(6), the Department shall
provide to the Commission information concerning the nature of the
subsidy and whether it is a subsidy described in Article 3 or Article
6.1 of the 1994 WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(``Subsidies Agreement'').
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable
subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked, and nature of the
subsidy are discussed below. In addition, the domestic interested
parties' comments with respect to each of these issues are addressed
within the respective sections.
Continuation or Recurrence of a Countervailable Subsidy
Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically
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.
[[Page 48371]]
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 III.A.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
Additionally, the Department normally will determine that revocation of
a countervailing duty order is likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy where (a) A subsidy program
continues, (b) a subsidy program has been only temporarily suspended,
or (c) a subsidy program has been only partially terminated (see
section III.A.3.a of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Exceptions to this
policy are provided where a company has a long record of not using a
program (see section III.A.3.b 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. Pursuant to the SAA, at 881, in a
review of a countervailing duty order, when the foreign government has
waived participation, the Department shall conclude that revocation of
the order would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of a
countervailable subsidy for all respondent interested
parties.2 In the instant review, the Department did not
receive a response from the foreign government or from any other
respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of
the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The domestic interested parties argue that revocation of the
countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip from France will
result in the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.
Citing the SAA, the domestic interested parties assert that
continuation, temporary or partial termination of a subsidy program
will be highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of countervailable subsidies, absent significant evidence to
the contrary (see March 3, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic
interested parties at 33). The domestic interested parties assert that
there is no indication that the French government's subsidy programs
have been modified or eliminated (see March 3, 1999 Substantive
Response of domestic interested parties at 38), and they submit as
support the fact that the order has never been subject to an
administrative review.
In its final countervailing duty determination (January 12, 1987;
52 FR 1218), the Department concluded that the Government of France was
providing countervailable subsidies to exporters of the subject
merchandise through two different programs: (1) Government Equity
Infusion and Other Financial Assistance and (2) Certain Financing from
Credit National. Trefimetaux, the sole producer/exporter reviewed by
the Department, was determined to be receiving subsidies through both
of these programs.
There have been no administrative reviews of this order, nor has
any evidence been submitted to the Department demonstrating the
termination of these programs that conferred countervailable subsidies.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these programs continue to
exist and are utilized. Absent argument and evidence to the contrary,
the Department determines that there is a likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy if the order were revoked.
Net Countervailable Subsidy
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will
select a rate from the investigation, because that is the only
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters and foreign
governments without the discipline of an order or suspension agreement
in place. The Department noted that this rate may not be the most
appropriate rate if, for example, the rate was derived from subsidy
programs which were found in subsequent reviews to be terminated, there
has been a program-wide change, or the rate ignores a program found to
be countervailable in a subsequent administrative review. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See section III.B.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The domestic interested parties, citing the SAA, note that the
Administration intends that Commerce normally will select the rate from
the investigation, because that is the only calculated rate that
reflects the behavior or exporters and foreign governments without the
discipline of an order in place (see March 3, 1999 Substantive Response
of domestic interested parties at 45). Therefore, the domestic
interested parties argue that the Department should determine that the
net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail is 7.24 percent, the rate
set forth in the original investigation.
The rate determined in the original investigation was 7.24 percent
for all imports of brass sheet and strip from France, and, as noted
above, there have been no administrative reviews of this order. Absent
administrative review, the Department has never found that substantive
changes have been made to the programs found to be countervailable.
Therefore, since no changes have been made to any of the French subsidy
programs, and absent any argument and evidence to the contrary, the
Department determines that the net countervailable subsidy that would
be likely to prevail in the event of revocation of the order would be
7.24 percent. This rate is for all producers and exporters of the
subject merchandise from France.
Nature of the Subsidy
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states that,
consistent with section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the Department will
provide to the Commission information concerning the nature of the
subsidy, and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. The domestic interested parties
did not address this issue in their substantive response of March 3,
1999.
Because the receipt of benefit under one of the two programs is
contingent on exports, this program falls within the definition of an
export subsidy under Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement. The
remaining program, although not falling within the definition of an
export subsidy under Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement, could
be found to be inconsistent with Article 6 if the net countervailable
subsidy exceeds five percent, as measured in accordance with Annex IV
of the Subsidies Agreement. The Department, however, has no information
with which to make such a calculation, nor do we believe it appropriate
to attempt such a calculation in the course of a sunset review. Rather,
we are providing the Commission with the following program
descriptions.
Certain Financing from Credit National. Trefimetaux received
countervailable subsidies under a program of loans provided by Credit
National, which has a strong relationship with the Government (the
President of France appoints the General Manager). In this case, the
Department found that Trefimetaux received special loans from Credit
National between 1976 and 1985.
[[Page 48372]]
Specifically, Credit National provided to Trefimetaux a loan with an
interest reduction contingent upon increasing exports, including the
subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department determines that this
program constituted an export subsidy.
Government Equity Infusion and Other Financial Assistance to
Trefimetaux. This program enabled Trefimetaux to receive equity
infusions and other financial assistance from Pechiney, its parent
company, from 1982 to 1985. Pechiney received direct equity infusions
from the Government of France, and provided them to Trefimetaux through
(1) equity infusions, (2) loans on terms inconsistent with commercial
considerations, and (3) government grants during a period when
Trefimetaux was determined by the Department to be neither equity nor
credit-worthy.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net countervailable
subsidy has been determined to be:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trefimetaux S.A............................................ 7.24
All Others................................................. 7.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government of France's subsidy programs, as determined in the
original investigation, have been deemed to be countervailable
subsidies within the definitions provided by Article 3 and Article 6.1
of the Subsidies Agreement, and all of these subsidy programs, as
determined in the original investigation, remain in place today.
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. 99-23047 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
