[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