[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 235 (Tuesday, December 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67656-67658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32539]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-046]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Polychloroprene Rubber 
From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: 
Polychloroprene rubber from Japan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On August 3, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on 
polychloroprene rubber from Japan (63 FR 41227) 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 substantive comments 
filed on behalf of the domestic industry, 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 
finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping at the levels indicated in the Magnitude of the Margin section 
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner, 
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1998.

[[Page 67657]]

Statute and Regulations

    This review was 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 this antidumping finding are shipments 
of polychloroprene rubber, an oil resistant synthetic rubber also known 
as polymerized chlorobutadiene or neoprene, currently classifiable 
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as 
items 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00, 4003.00.00, 4462.15.21 and 4462.00.00. 
HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and for Customs 
purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
    This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of 
polychloroprene rubber from Japan.

Background

    On August 3, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan (63 FR 41227), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice 
of Intent to Participate from Dupont Dow Elastomers L.L.C. (``DuPont'') 
on August 18, 1998, within the deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. DuPont claimed interested 
party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a manufacturer of 
the domestic like product. We received a complete substantive response 
from Dupont on September 2, 1998, within the 30-day deadline specified 
in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not 
receive a response from any respondent interested party to this 
proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act 
and our regulations (19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), the Department 
determined to conduct an expedited review.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping finding would be likely to lead to a 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 
finding, and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail 
if the finding is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of margin are discussed below. In 
addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping and the magnitude of 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 base 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.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). In addition, the 
Department indicated that it 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).
    The antidumping finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan was 
published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 73-333 (38 FR 
33593, December 6, 1973). Since that time, the Department has conducted 
a number of administrative reviews.1 The finding remains in 
effect for all imports of polychloroprene rubber from Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 14746 (April 6, 
1982); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 9678 (March 8, 
1983); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 49 FR 10694 (March 22, 
1984); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 49 FR 46454 (November 
26, 1984); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 61 FR 29344 (June 10, 
1996); and Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 61 FR 67318 (December 
20, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, DuPont argues that the history of the 
case and actions taken by Japanese producers and exporters of 
polychloroprene rubber prior to and during the pendency of this 
proceeding demonstrate that revocation likely would result in 
recurrence of dumping of polychloroprene rubber in the United States 
(see September 2, 1998 Substantive Response of DuPont). With respect to 
whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of 
the finding, DuPont states that in the four years prior to the finding 
of dumping by Treasury in 1973, Japanese imports of polychloroprene 
rubber trebled. However, according to DuPont, after the issuance of the 
finding, imports of polychloroprene rubber from Japan declined and then 
ceased. DuPont states that the results of final determination by 
Treasury and by the Department indicate shipments of polychloroprene 
rubber from Japan ceased after the issuance of the finding and have not 
resumed. In conclusion, DuPont argues that the Department should 
determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were 
the finding revoked because imports of polychloroprene rubber ceased 
soon after the issuance of the order.
    In each of the administrative reviews conducted by the Department, 
with the exception of the first administrative review covering various 
periods from July 1, 1973 through November 30, 1980, the Department 
found that there were no known shipments by the known exporters of 
polychloroprene rubber from Japan.2 We find, therefore,

[[Page 67658]]

that the cessation of imports after the issuance of the finding is 
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or dumping. 
Furthermore, deposit rates above de minimis levels continue in effect 
for two of the eight known Japanese polychloroprene rubber producers 
and/or exporters. As discussed in Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if imports 
cease after the order is issued, we may reasonably assume that 
exporters could not sell in the United States without dumping and that, 
to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume dumping. 
Therefore, absent argument and evidence to the contrary, and given that 
shipments of the subject merchandise ceased soon after the issuance of 
the finding and that dumping margins continued after the issuance of 
the finding, the Department, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin, determines that dumping is likely to continue 
or recur if the finding were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 14746 (April 6, 
1982); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 9678 (March 8, 
1983); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 49 FR 10694 (March 22, 
1984); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 49 FR 46454 (November 
26, 1984); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 61 FR 29344 (June 10, 
1996); and Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 61 FR 67318 (December 
20, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, in a 
sunset review of an antidumping finding for which no company-specific 
margin or all others rate is included in the Treasury finding published 
in the Federal Register, the Department normally will provide to the 
Commission the company-specific margin from the first final results of 
administrative review published in the Federal Register by the 
Department. Additionally, if the first final results do not contain a 
margin for a particular company, the Department normally will provide 
the Commission, as the margin for that company, the first ``new 
shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding. (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).
    Because Treasury did not publish weighted-average dumping margins 
in its finding, the margins determined in the original investigation 
are not available to the Department for use in this sunset review. 
Under these circumstances, the Department normally will select the 
margin from the first administrative review conducted by the Department 
as the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the 
finding is revoked. We note that, to date, the Department has not 
issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
    In its substantive response, DuPont argues that because Treasury 
did not publish company-specific margins or a ``new shipper's'' rate in 
this finding, the Department, consistent with its Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, should report the company-specific margins and ``new 
shipper's'' rate calculated by the Department in the final results of 
the first administrative review.
    The Department finds no reason to deviate from our Sunset Policy 
Bulletin in this review. We determine that the original margins 
calculated by the Department are probative of the behavior of the 
Japanese manufacturers and exporters of polychloroprene rubber. (See 
Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative 
Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 14746 (April 6, 1982). We will 
report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all other's'' rate 
contained in the Final Results section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denki Kagaku Kogyo, K.K......................................          0
Denki Kagku Kogyo, K.K./Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd.................         55
Suzugo Corporation...........................................         55
All Other's Rate.............................................         55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: December 1, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-32539 Filed 12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P