[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25011-25013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-501]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Natural Bristle 
Paintbrushes and Brush Heads From the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: natural 
bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the People's Republic of 
China.

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

SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the People's Republic 
of China (64 FR 364) 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 order 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: Scott E. Smith 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-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: May 10, 1999.

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 order is natural 
bristle paint brushes and brush heads from the People's Republic of 
China. Natural bristle ``bristle packs,'' which are groups of natural 
bristles held together at the base with glue that closely resemble a 
traditional paintbrush head are within the scope of the 
order.1 Excluded from the order are paintbrushes with a 
blend of 60 percent synthetic and 40 percent natural 
fibers.2 The merchandise under review is currently 
classifiable under item 9603.40.40.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memo to Joe Spetrini, Re: Final Scope Ruling on 
Antidumping Duty Order on Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush 
Heads from the People's Republic of China (May 12, 1997).
    \2\ See Scope Rulings, 59 FR 25615 (May 17, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
Chinese natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads.

Background

    On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping order on natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from 
the People's Republic of China (64 FR 364), pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act. The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate 
on behalf of the Paint Applicator Division (``PAD'') of the American 
Brush Manufacturers Association and its participating members on 
January 19, 1999, within the deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. PAD claimed interested 
party status under 771(9)(E) of the Act as a trade association, the 
majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic 
like product in the U.S. The member companies of PAD also claimed 
interested party status under 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of 
a domestic like product.3 In addition, PAD indicated that 
five of its member companies were among the original petitioners in the 
proceeding.4 We received a complete substantive response 
from PAD on February 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 respondent interested party to 
this proceeding. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The members of PAD are: EZ Paintr Corporation, Bestt Liebco, 
Wooster Brush Company, Purdy Corporation, Tru*Serv Manufacturing and 
Linzer Products Corporation.
    \4\ These five companies are: EZ Paintr Corporation, Bestt 
Liebco (formerly Joseph Lieberman & Sons, Inc.), Wooster Brush 
Company, Purdy Corporation, Tru*Serv Manufacturing (formerly 
Baltimore Brush & Roller Co., Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation

[[Page 25012]]

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 
order, and 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, PAD's 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.3). In addition, the Department 
indicated that normally it 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).
    In addition to the guidance on likelihood determinations provided 
in the Sunset Policy Bulletin and legislative history, 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 the instant review, 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.
    The antidumping duty order on natural bristle paintbrushes and 
brush heads from the People's Republic of China was published in the 
Federal Register on February 14, 1986 (51 FR 5580). Since that time, 
the Department has conducted several administrative 
reviews.5 The order remains in effect for all manufacturers 
and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review 
of Antidumping Order, 55 FR 42599 (October 22, 1990); Natural 
Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, 
61 FR 52917 (October 9, 1996); Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and 
Brush Heads From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, 62 FR 11823 (March 13, 
1997); and Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review 
of Antidumping Order, 63 FR 12449 (March 13, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, PAD argues that the Department should 
determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on imports on 
natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads and brush heads from China 
would likely result in the continuation of dumping in the United States 
(see February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of PAD at 11). With respect 
to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the 
issuance of the order, PAD states that dumping has continued at 
substantial margins since the order was imposed in 1986 (see February 
3, 1999 Substantive Response of PAD at 12).
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
after the issuance of the order, PAD states that imports of natural 
bristle paintbrushes from China have declined significantly since the 
order was imposed (see February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of PAD at 
14). Citing USDOC trade statistic data and U.S. Census Bureau trade 
statistic data, PAD asserts that imports of the subject merchandise 
have decreased from 38,000,000 units in 1984 (the last full year before 
the petition was filed) to 1,225,000 units in 1997 (the most recent 
full year for which data are available). PAD notes, however, the 
imports of subject merchandise continue.
    In conclusion, PAD argues that the Department should determine that 
there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were the order 
revoked because (1) Dumping margins above de minimis levels have been 
in place since the imposition of the order, (2) imports of subject 
merchandise, while significantly below pre-order levels, have, 
nevertheless, continued since the issuance of the order, and (3) there 
was an increase in imports from 1994 to 1995 which coincided with the 
period of review in which the Department preliminarily determined that 
imports were being dumped at substantial margins.
    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 above de minimis levels continue to exist for 
shipments of the subject merchandise from all Chinese producers/
exporters.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review 
of Antidumping Order, 55 FR 42599 (October 22, 1990); Natural 
Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, 
61 FR 52917 (October 9, 1996); Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and 
Brush Heads From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Order, 62 FR 11823 (March 13, 
1997); and Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads From the 
People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review 
of Antidumping Order, 63 FR 12449 (March 13, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the 
order. The Department, utilizing U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports and 
data from our original investigation and subsequent administrative 
reviews, can confirm that imports of the subject merchandise decreased 
sharply following the imposition of the order but have continued in 
commercial quantities throughout the life of the order.
    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates 
above de minimis levels continue in effect for exports of the subject 
merchandise by all known Chinese manufacturers/exporters. Therefore, 
given that dumping has continued over the life of the order, respondent 
interested parties have waived their right to participate in this 
review before the Department, and absent argument and evidence to the 
contrary, the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue 
if the order were revoked.

[[Page 25013]]

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated 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.)
    The Department, in its notice of the antidumping duty order on 
natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the PRC, established 
a country-wide weighted-average dumping margin of 127.07 percent for 
all imports of the subject merchandise from the People's Republic of 
China (51 FR 5580, February 14, 1986). We note that, to date, the 
Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
    In its substantive response, PAD argues that the Department should 
report to the Commission the more recently calculated and higher margin 
of 351.92 percent for all Chinese exporters and producers (61 FR 52917, 
October 9, 1996).7 PAD asserts that the circumstances for 
reporting a more recent and higher margin as described by the 
Department in its policy bulletin and recent determinations are present 
(see February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of PAD at 18). Citing the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin, PAD states that in certain circumstances, 
because a foreign exporter or producer may ``choose to increase dumping 
in order to maintain or increase market share,'' higher, more recently 
calculated margins may be more probative of a company's likely behavior 
in the absence of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PAD states that the Department has issued final 
determinations of dumping margins of 351.92 percent for a total of 
six companies in three different review periods (1994-1995, 1995-
1996, and 1996-1997) and a preliminary determination of a dumping 
margin of 351.92 percent for one additional company in a fourth 
review period (1997-1998) (February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of 
PAD at 18, 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department agrees with PAD's argument concerning the choice of 
the margin rate to report to the Commission. We find increasing import 
volumes coupled with increasing dumping margins provide sufficient 
cause for the Department to report to the Commission a rate other than 
that calculated in the original investigation.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Department recognizes that where a more recent dumping 
margin is ``more representative of a company's behavior in the 
absence of the order,'' that is the margin that should be reported 
to the Commission (see section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin). The ``more representative'' standard may be satisfied if 
the Department finds an ``increase in imports ... corresponding to 
the increase in the dumping margin'' (see Final Results of Expedited 
Sunset Review: Barium Chloride From the People's Republic of China, 
64 FR 5633, 5635 (February 4, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department established on February 14, 1986, in the antidumping 
duty order, a deposit rate of 127.07 percent on all PRC-origin natural 
bristle paintbrushes and brush heads. On October 22, 1990, the 
Department calculated a margin rate for Peace Target, Inc. of 47.1 
percent (55 FR 42599, 42601); all other Chinese producers/exporters 
retained the deposit rate established in the antidumping duty order (51 
FR 5580). These deposit rates remained in effect until October 9, 1996 
at the conclusion of the 1994/1995 administrative review (see 61 FR 
52917). The Department, in the Final Results of the 1994/1995 
administrative review, calculated dumping margins of 351.92 percent and 
therefore, established duty deposit requirements for both Hebei Animal 
By-Products Import/Export Corporation and the PRC as a whole (61 FR 
52920). For the Final Results of the 1995/1996 administrative review, 
the Department established a deposit rate of 351.92 percent for all 
Chinese producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. Although it 
appears that imports during 1994 increased only slightly, there was a 
dramatic increase in imports during 1995, increasing roughly 200 
percent from 1994 levels.9 Therefore, the significant rise 
in the dumping margin during this period was associated with a 
substantial increase in imports. Following the publication of the 1994/
1995 Final Results on October 9, 1996, imports of the subject 
merchandise dramatically decreased, falling by almost 70 percent 
between 1995 and 1996.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ According to U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports, in 1995, 
subject merchandise increased by more than 7 million units, from 3.3 
million units in 1994 to 10.4 million units in 1995.
    \10\ See U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports for HTSUS item number 
9603.40.40.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Sunset Policy Bulletin, ``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'' (see section II.B.2 of the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin). In addition, the Sunset Policy Bulletin notes that 
the Department will normally consider market share. However, absent 
information on relative market share, and absent argument or evidence 
to the contrary, we have relied on import volumes in the present case. 
Therefore, in light of the correlation between an increase in imports 
and an increase in the dumping margins, the Department finds this more 
recent rate is the most probative of the behavior of Chinese producers/
exporters of natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads if the order 
were revoked. Thus, the Department will report to the Commission the 
company-specific rate and country-wide rate from the Final Results of 
the administrative review for the period February 1, 1994 through 
January 31, 1995 as contained in the Final Results of Review section of 
this notice.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebei Animal By-Products Import/Export Corp................       351.92
All Other Chinese Manufacturers/Exporters..................       351.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: May 4, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-11719 Filed 5-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P