[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 150 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42658-42660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-538-802]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Cotton Shop Towels From 
Bangladesh

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: cotton shop 
towels from Bangladesh.

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

SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh (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 adequate substantive 
comments filed on behalf of a domestic interested party 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: August 5, 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 duty order is cotton 
shop towels from Bangladesh. Shop towels are absorbent industrial 
wiping cloths made from a loosely woven fabric. The fabric may be 
either 100-percent cotton or a blend of materials. Shop towels are 
currently classifiable under item numbers 6307.10.2005 and 6307.10.2015 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS). 
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding 
remains dispositive.
    This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
shop towels from Bangladesh.

[[Page 42659]]

History of the Order:

    On February 3, 1992, the Department issued its final determination 
of sales at less than fair value in the investigation of cotton shop 
towels from Bangladesh (57 FR 3996). The Department published weighted 
average dumping margins of 42.31 percent for Eagle Star Textile Mills, 
Ltd., and 2.72 percent for Sonar Cotton Mills, Ltd. The Department also 
published a weighted average dumping margin of 4.60 percent for all 
other Bangladeshi manufacturers and/or exporters of the subject 
merchandise.
    The antidumping duty order on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh 
was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 1992 (57 FR 9688). 
Since that time, the Department has conducted four administrative 
reviews.1 We note that, to date, the Department has not 
issued any duty absorption findings in this case. The order remains in 
effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Shop Towels of Cotton From Bangladesh; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 12600 (March 17, 
1997); Shop Towels of Cotton From Bangladesh; Amendment to Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 4253 
(January 29, 1997); Shop Towels of Cotton From Bangladesh; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 55957 
(October 30, 1996); Shop Towels of Cotton From Bangladesh; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 5377 
(February 12, 1996); and Shop Towels of Cotton From Bangladesh; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 48966 
(September 21, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh (64 FR 
364), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a 
Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Milliken & Company 
(``Milliken'') on January 19, 1999, within the deadline specified in 
Sec. 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. We received a complete 
substantive response from Milliken on February 3, 1999, within the 30-
day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 
351.218(d)(3)(i). Milliken claimed interested party status under 
section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of shop towels. In 
addition, Milliken stated that it was the petitioner in the original 
investigation. 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.
    The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping 
duty order on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh is extraordinarily 
complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). (See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) Therefore, on May 3, 
1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the 
final results of this review until not later than August 2, 1999, in 
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Steel Wire Rope From Japan, Shop Towels From the 
People's Republic of China, Shop Towels From Bangladesh, Candles 
From the People's Republic of China, Steel Wire Rope From Mexico, 
Shop Towels From Pakistan, Steel Wire Rope From South Korea, 
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From South Korea, Malleable Cast 
Iron Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 
From Japan: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 24573 (May 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty order 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 duty 
order, and it 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, Milliken'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.2). In addition, the Department 
indicated that normally it will determine that revocation of an 
antidumping duty 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 guidance on likelihood cited above, 
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 Sec. 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, 
this constitutes a waiver of participation.
    In its substantive response, Milliken argues that the history of 
the case and the actions taken by Bangladeshi producers and exporters 
of shop towels prior to and during the pendency of this proceeding 
demonstrate clearly that revocation likely would result in a recurrence 
of dumping shop towels in the United States. With respect to whether 
dumping continued after the issuance of the order, Milliken, citing the 
Department's final results of several administrative reviews, asserts 
that a number of manufacturers/exporters continued dumping above a de 
minimis level during the pendency of this proceeding. Further, Milliken 
argues that although certain manufacturers received zero or de minimis 
dumping margins in administrative reviews, these findings are due to 
the peculiarity of the Department's constructed value calculation.
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
after the issuance of the order, Milliken asserts that, faced with 
continuing antidumping duties, two known Bangladeshi producers, Sonar 
Cotton, Ltd. (``Sonar''), and Eagle Star Textile Mills, Ltd. (``Eagle 
Star''), ceased exporting to the United States since the issuance of 
the order (see February 3, 1999, Substantive Response of Milliken at 5, 
6).

[[Page 42660]]

    In conclusion, Milliken argues that the Department should determine 
that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue or recur were 
the order revoked because (1) dumping margins above de minimis levels 
continued after the issuance of the order and (2) imports of the 
subject merchandise ceased after the imposition of the order (for some 
companies).
    We agree with Milliken that dumping margins continued above de 
minimis levels after the issuance of the order. The Department, after 
examining the final results of the four administrative reviews, finds 
that dumping margins above de minimis levels continue for at least two 
of the six known Bangladeshi producers/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 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.
    The Department, utilizing U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports and U.S. 
Department of Commerce trade statistics, finds that imports of the 
subject merchandise have continued, and generally increased, over the 
life of the order. With respect to Milliken's assertion that imports 
from Sonar and Eagle Star have ceased, although the Department agrees 
that Eagle Star had no shipments during the 1993/1994 administrative 
review (61 FR 5377 (February 12, 1996)), the Department cannot conclude 
from the Federal Register notices of results of administrative reviews 
that Sonar ceased exporting or that there continue to be no shipments 
from these two companies.
    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 two of the six known Bangladeshi producers/exporters. 
Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of the order 
and 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.

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 final determination of sales at less than 
fair value, published weighted-average dumping margins for two 
producers/exporters of cotton shop towels from Bangladesh (57 FR 3996, 
February 3, 1992). The Department also published an ``all others'' rate 
in this determination. We note that, to date, the Department has not 
issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
    In its substantive response, Milliken, citing the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, suggests that the Department report to the Commission the two 
company-specific margins and the ``all others'' rates established in 
the investigation because those are the only calculated rates that 
reflect the behavior of exporters without the discipline of the order 
in place.
    The Department agrees with Milliken. Absent argument and evidence 
to the contrary, the Department finds that the margins calculated in 
the original investigation are probative of the behavior of Bangladeshi 
producers/exporters if the order were revoked as they are the only 
margins which reflect their actions absent the discipline of the order. 
As such, the Department will report to the Commission the company-
specific and all others rates from the original investigation 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 be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Star Textile Mills, Ltd..............................        42.31
Sonar Cotton Mills, Ltd....................................         2.72
All Others.................................................         4.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 30, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20223 Filed 8-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P