[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40570-40572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19162]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-580-601, A-583-603]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Top-of-the-Stove 
Stainless Steel Cookware From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: top-of-
the-stove stainless steel cookware from the Republic of Korea and 
Taiwan.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping orders on 
top-of-the-stove stainless steel cookware (``cookware'') from the 
Republic of Korea (``Korea'') and Taiwan (64 FR 4840) pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On 
the basis of notices of intent to participate and substantive comments 
filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and inadequate 
response (in these cases, no response) from respondent interested 
parties, the Department determined to conduct expedited reviews. As a 
result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the 
antidumping orders 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 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 27, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    These reviews were 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 these antidumping orders is top-of-the-
stove stainless steel cookware from Korea and Taiwan. The subject 
merchandise is all non-electric cooking ware of stainless steel which 
may have one or more layers of aluminum, copper or carbon steel for 
more even heat distribution. The subject merchandise includes skillets, 
frying pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double boilers, stock pots, 
dutch ovens, casseroles, steamers, and other stainless steel vessels, 
all for cooking on stove top burners, except tea kettles and fish 
poachers. Excluded from the scope of the order are stainless steel oven 
ware and stainless steel kitchen ware. The Department has issued 
several scope clarifications for these two orders. For imports of the 
subject merchandise from Korea, certain stainless steel pasta and 
steamer inserts are within the scope (63 FR 41545, August 4, 1998), 
certain stainless steel eight-cup coffee percolators are within the 
scope (58 FR 11209, February 24, 1993), and certain stainless steel 
stock pots and covers are within the scope of the order (57 FR 57420, 
December 4, 1992). For imports of the subject merchandise from Taiwan, 
``universal pan lids'' are not within the scope of the order (57 FR 
57420, December 4, 1992) and Max Burton's StoveTop Smoker is within the 
scope of the order (60 FR 36782, July 18, 1995). Moreover, as a result 
of a changed circumstances review, the Department revoked the order on 
Korea in part with respect to certain stainless steel camping ware (1) 
made of single-ply stainless steel having a thickness no greater than 
6.0 millimeters; and (2) consisting of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 quart 
saucepans without handles and with lids that also serve as fry pans (62 
FR 3662, January 24, 1997). Such merchandise is currently classifiable 
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 7323.93.00 and 
9604.00.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
Customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
    These reviews cover imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
top-of-the-stove stainless steel cookware from the Republic of Korea 
and Taiwan.

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping orders on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cookware from 
the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (64 FR 4840), pursuant to section 
751(c) of the Act. The Department received Notices of Intent to 
Participate on behalf of the Stainless Steel Cookware Committee, whose 
current members are Regal Ware, Inc., All-Clad Metalcrafters, Inc., and 
Vita Craft Corp. (collectively, the ``Committee''), on February 16, 
1999, within the deadline specified in Sec. 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the 
Sunset Regulations. Pursuant to section 771(9)(E) of the Act, the 
Committee claimed interested party status as an association of U.S. 
manufacturers of a domestic like product. In addition, the Committee's 
individual members claimed domestic interested party status pursuant to 
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as domestic producers of a like product. 
Moreover, the Committee stated that Regal Ware was a petitioner in the 
original investigation. The Department received complete substantive 
responses from the Committee on March 3, 1999, within the 30-day 
deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under 
Sec. 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

[[Page 40571]]

CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct 
expedited, 120-day, reviews of these orders.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping orders would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making these determinations, 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 margins of dumping 
likely to prevail if the orders are revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are discussed 
below. In addition, the Committee's comments with respect to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins 
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 considering the guidance on likelihood cited above, 
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested 
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In these reviews, 
the Department did not receive a substantive response from any 
respondent interested party. Pursuant to Sec. 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the 
Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
    The antidumping orders on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cookware 
from Taiwan and the Republic of Korea were published in the Federal 
Register on January 20, 1987 (52 FR 2138, 2139). Since that time, the 
Department has conducted several administrative reviews of the order 
with respect to cookware from Korea.1 However, since the 
imposition of the order, no administrative reviews of the antidumping 
order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cookware from Taiwan have 
been conducted. The orders remain in effect for all manufacturers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise from both countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic 
of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
56 FR 38114 (August 12, 1991); Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware 
from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 58 FR 9560 (February 22, 1993); Stainless 
Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic of Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 10788 (March 8, 1994); 
Certain Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from the Republic of Korea; 
Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Order, 62 FR 3662 (January 24, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive responses, the Committee argued that the actions 
taken by Korean and Taiwanese producers/exporters of stainless steel 
cookware during the life of the order indicate that the likely effect 
of revocation of the orders in these cases would be that dumping of 
cookware would continue at significant margins (see March 3, 1999, 
Substantive Response of the Committee at 8 (Taiwan) and 9-10 (Korea)). 
With respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis 
after the issuance of the orders, the Committee pointed out that, 
regarding the subject merchandise from Korea, the Department has found 
in its administrative reviews margins of dumping above de minimis, with 
rates as high as 31.23 percent (see March 3, 1999, Substantive Response 
of the Committee at 10). With respect to the merchandise from Taiwan, 
the Department has not conducted any administrative reviews. Therefore, 
the Committee argued, because the margins that were determined in the 
original investigation remain in effect, all of the margins applicable 
to imports of stainless steel cookware from Taiwan are significantly 
above de minimis (see March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of the 
Committee at 9).
    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. As pointed out above, dumping margins above de minimis 
continue to exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from both 
Korea and Taiwan.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considers the volume of imports before and after issuance of the order. 
The Committee argued that a significant decline in the volume of 
imports of the subject merchandise from both Korea and Taiwan since the 
imposition of the orders provides further evidence that dumping would 
continue if the orders were revoked. In their substantive responses, 
the Committee provided statistics demonstrating the decline in import 
volumes of stainless steel cookware from Korea and Taiwan (see March 3, 
1999, Substantive Responses of the Committee at Attachment 1). The 
Department's statistics on imports of the subject merchandise from 
Taiwan and Korea confirm the Committee's arguments that imports of 
stainless steel cooking ware fell sharply after the orders were 
imposed. In fact, the volume of imports of cookware from Taiwan fell 
from approximately 15,208,000 units in 1986 to approximately 3,979,000 
in 1987 and continued dropping to 1,774,000 in 1998.2 As for 
the volume of imports from Korea, they also dropped dramatically after 
the imposition of the order, from approximately 35,540,000 units in 
1986 to approximately 16,858,000 units in 1987 and continued dropping 
to 3,660,000 in 1998.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See U.S. Census Bureau Report IM146 and the March 3, 1999, 
Substantive Response of the Committee at Attachment 1.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, in conducting its sunset reviews, the Department 
considers the weighted-average dumping margins and volume of imports 
when determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order would 
lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Based on this

[[Page 40572]]

analysis, the Department finds that the existence of dumping margins 
above de minimis levels and a reduction in export volumes after the 
issuance of the orders is highly probative of the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate above a de 
minimis level continues in effect for exports of the subject 
merchandise by all known Korean and all known Taiwanese producers/
exporters. Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of 
the orders, import volumes declined significantly after the imposition 
of the orders, respondent parties waived participation, and absent 
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that 
dumping is likely to continue if the orders were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it 
normally will 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 final determinations of sales at less than 
fair value, published weighted-average dumping margins for five Korean 
producers/exporters of stainless steel cookware (51 FR 42873, November 
26, 1986, amended in 51 FR 46889, December 29, 1986) and three 
Taiwanese producers/exporters (51 FR 42882, November 26, 1986). 
Moreover, the Department published an ``all others'' rate in both of 
these determinations. We note that, to date, the Department has not 
issued any duty absorption findings in either of these cases.
    In their substantive responses, the Committee recommended that, 
consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department provide to 
the Commission the company-specific margins from the original 
investigations. Moreover, regarding companies not reviewed in the 
original investigation, the Committee suggested that the Department 
report the all others rates included in the original investigations.
    The Department agrees with the Committee. The Department finds the 
margins calculated in the original investigation are probative of the 
behavior of Korean and Taiwanese producers/exporters if the orders were 
revoked as they are the only margins which reflect their actions absent 
the discipline of the order. Therefore, the Department will report to 
the Commission the company-specific and all-others rates from the 
original investigations 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 orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                      Producer/exporter                        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea:
  Bum Koo...................................................       31.23
  Dae Sung..................................................        6.11
  Hai Dong..................................................       12.14
  Kyung Dong................................................        8.36
  Namil.....................................................        0.75
  All Others................................................        8.10
Taiwan:
  Golden Lion Metal Industry Co, Ltd........................       15.08
  Lyi Mean Industrial Co., Ltd..............................       26.10
  Song Far Industry Co., Ltd................................       25.90
  All Others................................................       22.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: July 21, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-19162 Filed 7-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P