[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