[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 853-856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-250]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-059]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Pressure Sensitive
Plastic Tape From Italy
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: pressure
sensitive plastic tape from Italy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on
pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy (63 FR 46410) 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 a complete
substantive response 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
Final Results of Review section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G.
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. &
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
Effective Date: January 6, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review was conducted pursuant to section 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
[[Page 854]]
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
Imports covered by the review are shipments of pressure sensitive
plastic tape (``PSPT'') measuring over 1\3/8\ inches in width and not
exceeding 4 mils in thickness. The above described PSPT was classified
under HTS subheadings 3919.90.20 and 3919.90.50. On May 7, 1992, the
Department issued a scope ruling on highlighting ``note tape'' and
determined that it was not within the scope of the order. See Scope
Rulings, 57 FR 19602. The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience
and for U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description remains
dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.
This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of pressure
sensitive plastic tape from Italy, other than Plasturopa (which was
excluded in the original less than fair value investigation conducted
by the Treasury Department), and Autodesivitalia, S.p.A. and Boston
S.p.A., for which the finding has been revoked. 1 The
finding remains in effect for all other imports of the subject
merchandise from Italy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping--Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape Measuring
Over One and Three-Eighths Inches in Width and Not Exceeding Four
Millimeters in Thickness From Italy; Finding of dumping; 42 FR 56110
(Oct. 21, 1977); Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in
Part; 53 FR 16444 (May 9, 1988) (revocation with respect to
Autodesivitalia, S.p.A.) and Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From
Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Relocation in Part; 55 FR 6031 (February 21, 1990) (revocation with
respect to Boston, S.p.A.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On September 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping finding on pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy
(63 FR 46410) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department
received a Notice of Intent to Participate from Minnesota Mining &
Manufacturing Company (``3M''), within the deadline specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. 3M claimed
interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a United
States producer of pressure sensitive plastic tape. 3M stated that it
was the petitioner in the investigation and has participated in the
Department's subsequent administrative reviews. On September 29, 1998,
the Department received a substantive response from 3M, within the 30-
day deadline specified in Sunset Regulations under section
351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a response from any respondent
interested party. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the
Act, and our regulations (19 C.F.R. Sec. 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), we
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 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 it 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 the margin are discussed below.
In addition, 3M's comments with respect to the 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 basis for
likelihood determinations. The Department clarified that determinations
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.3.
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department 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 pressure sensitive plastic tape from
Italy was published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 77-
258, 42 FR 56110 (Oct. 21,1977). The Department has conducted numerous
administrative reviews. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 48 FR 35686 (Aug. 5,1983);
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 51 FR 43955 (Dec.5,1986);
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 53 FR
16444 (May 9,1988) with respect to Autodesivitalia,S.p.A.; Pressure
Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 54 FR 13091 (May 30,1989); Pressure Sensitive
Plastic Tape From Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 55 FR 6031(Feb. 21,
1990) with respect to Boston, S.p.A.; Pressure Sensitive Plastic
Tape From Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 55 FR 49670 (Nov. 30, 1990); Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape
from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
56 FR 56630 (Nov 6, 1991); Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From
Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 58
FR 51616 (Oct. 4. 1993); Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy;
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review; 59 FR 36162
(Apr.13, 1994); Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 60 FR 55362 (Oct.
31,1995); Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 63 FR 50882 (Sep.23,
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, 3M argued that revocation of the
finding would result in the continuation or recurrence of dumping that
has been persistent since 1977. Additionally, 3M concluded that without
the discipline of the finding (1) the present dumping margins would
increase to an even greater magnitude than has been evident in the
preceding years when the order was in effect, and (2) the volume of
dumped merchandise would sharply increase. 3M supported this conclusion
on the basis that while the finding has been in effect, margins greater
than de minimis have persisted and the import volume has declined.
With respect to the existence of dumping margins over the life of
the finding, in its substantive response 3M stated that ``although
certain Italian producers have sporadically had zero or de minimis
margins during certain review periods, it is apparent that the subject
merchandise has been dumped at margins greater than de minimis
throughout the history of the order,
[[Page 855]]
ranging from 1.19 percent to 12.66 percent.'' 3 3M pointed
to the fact that in the recent administrative review covering period
October 1, 1996--September 9, 1997, the Italian producer subject to
review was found to have a dumping margin of 12.66 percent.
4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See September 29, 1998, Substantive Response of 3M at 4.
\4\ See Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 63 FR 50822
(September 23, 1998) and September 29, 1998, Substantive Response of
3M at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, ``[i]f companies continue to
dump with the discipline of an order in place, it is reasonable to
assume that dumping would continue if the discipline were removed.''
The Department has found dumping margins for various companies during
administrative reviews conducted over the life of this finding. Dumping
margins above de minimis continue in effect for some of these
companies. For example, margins of 12.66 percent were found in
administrative reviews conducted on shipments of both N.A.R. S.p.A.
(``NAR'') and Autoadesivi Magri for the period 1993-1994 and for NAR
for the period 1996-1997. 5 Therefore, given that dumping
has continued over the life of the finding, and absent argument and
evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is
likely to continue if the finding were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 60 FR 55362
(October 31, 1995) with respect to NAR and Autoadesivi Magri, and
Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 63 FR 50882 (September 23,
1998) with respect to NAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it
normally will provide to the Commission the company-specific margin
from the investigation for each company. 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. The Department
clarified that for sunset reviews of antidumping findings, the
Department normally will provide the company-specific or all others
rate included in the Treasury finding published in the Federal
Register. Additionally, if no company-specific margin or all others
rate is included in the Treasury finding, 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. However, 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.
In its May 31, 1977, determination of sales of less than fair value
(``LTFV'') Treasury reported the following range of margins, by
company: Boston--zero to 17 percent, Comet--2 to 19 percent, and Manuli
1--26 percent. Treasury did not identify weighted-average margins nor
an all others rate.
In its substantive response, 3M requested that the Department
select the highest company-specific margin identified in Treasury's
LTFV determination, specifically, Boston--17 percent, Comet--18
percent, and Manuli--26 percent. 3M also requested that, consistent
with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department use the first ``new
shippers'' rate from the final results of the first review conducted by
the Department as the margin likely to prevail for all other companies.
Finally, 3M requested that the Department assign to Autoadesivitalia,
S.p.A. the all others rate of 12.66 percent regardless of the fact that
the Department determined a zero margin for Autoadesivitalia, S.p.A. in
the first administrative review (because the company ceased shipments
of the subject merchandise after October 5, 1982). 3M argued that it is
apparent that Autoadesivitalia cannot presently sell the subject
merchandise into the United States without dumping and, therefore, good
cause exists for the Department to assume that the magnitude of the
dumping margin for that company, at the present time, would similarly
be 12.66 percent.
In its LTFV determination, Treasury specified the percentage of
sales reviewed and the range of margins found, by company. Treasury did
not, however, indicate a weighted-average margin by company. We do not
agree with 3M's suggestion that the highest margin found by Treasury is
representative of the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the
finding were revoked. Rather, consistent with Section 752(c) of the
Act, which provides that in making the determination of likelihood
``the Department shall consider the weighted-average dumping margins
determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews' (emphasis
added), we determine that a weighted-average margin is more appropriate
than the highest individual margin found by Treasury.
In section II.B.1. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department
discussed the legislative history related to selection of the magnitude
of the margin likely to prevail and clarified the preference for
selecting a margin ``from the investigation, because that is the only
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters . . . without
the discipline of an order or suspension agreement in place.'' We note
that in its final affirmative determination of injury, the Commission
identified the weighted-average margin found by Treasury in its
investigation. See Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy;
Determination of Injury or Likelihood Thereof; 42 FR 44853 (September
7, 1977). Specifically, the Commission reported that the weighted-
average margin for the three firms' LTFV sales was about ten percent.
Therefore, the Department determines that the magnitude of the margin
likely to prevail if the finding were revoked is 10 percent, the
weighted-average margin of dumping found in the original investigation.
With respect to Autoadesivitalia, we note that, based on a finding
of de minimis dumping margins during the period October 1, 1980 through
October 5, 1982, and no subsequent requests for review, the Department
determined to revoke the finding with respect to Autoadesivitalia in
the administrative review covering the period October 1985 through
September 1986.6 Because the finding has been revoked with
respect to Autoadesivitalia, we are not reporting a margin for that
company to the ITC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in
Part, 53 FR 16444 (May 9, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments, 3M noted that the Department has not issued any
determination with regard to duty absorption. However, 3M requested
that the Department assume that duty absorption is taking place and
adjust the margin by increasing the likely margin by the amount
attributable to duty absorption. 3M stated that in instances where the
foreign exporter sells the subject merchandise through an affiliated
importer, and absent a finding in this sunset proceeding that no duty
[[Page 856]]
absorption is taking place, the Department should make this assumption
and adjustment. We disagree with 3M. With respect to this finding, we
note that 3M did not request a duty absorption determination during the
administrative review initiated in 1996 (3M's first opportunity to
request a duty absorption determination 7).8 In
fact, the administrative review initiated in 1996, covering NAR, was
initiated in response to a request from Horizon Plastics, an importer
of tape from Italy. Commerce did not conduct a duty absorption inquiry;
thus the record does not support a finding of duty absorption.
Therefore, we have not adopted 3M's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Section 751(a)(4) of the Act provides that, during the
second and fourth administrative review of an order (or, for
transition orders, during an administrative review initiated in 1996
or 1998 (see 19 CFR 351.213 (j)), upon request, the Department will
determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign
producer or exporter subject to a finding if the subject merchandise
is sold in the United States through an importer who is affiliated
with such foreign producer or exporter.
\8\ The deadline for requesting a duty absorption determination
in the administrative review of this finding initiated on November
30, 1998, is December 30, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autoadesivitali, S.p.A..................................... \1\
Boston, S.p.A.............................................. \1\
Comet SARA, S.p.A.......................................... 10.00
Cosmonastri, S.p.A......................................... 10.00
Manuli Autoadesivi (Manuli)................................ 10.00
Plasturopa................................................. \1\
Nazionale Imballaggi....................................... 10.00
SMAC, S.p.A................................................ 10.00
All Others................................................. 10.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revoked.
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 30, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-250 Filed 1-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P