[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46637-46642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip 
From the Netherlands

[A-421-701]
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass 
Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands (64 FR 4840) 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 filed on behalf of 
domestic interested parties and adequate substantive responses filed on 
behalf of the domestic and respondent interested parties, the 
Department determined to conduct a full review. As a result of this 
review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the 
antidumping duty order would not be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a dumping.

For Further Information Contact: Eun W. Cho or Melissa G. Skinner, 
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1698 or 
(202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: August 26, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review is being 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'').

[[Page 46638]]

Scope

    Imports covered by this order are brass sheet and strip, other than 
leaded and tin brass sheet and strip, from the Netherlands. The 
chemical composition of the products under order is currently defined 
in the Copper Development Association (CDA) 200 Series or the Unified 
Numbering System (UNS) C20000 series. This order does not cover 
products the chemical composition of which are defined by other CDA or 
UNS series. The physical dimensions of the products covered by this 
order are brass sheet and strip of solid rectangular cross section over 
0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter) through 0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in 
gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse-wound), 
and cut-to-length products are included. The merchandise subject to 
this order is currently classifiable under items numbers 7409.21.00 and 
7409.29.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise 
subject to this order is dispositive.

History of the Order

    The antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from the 
Netherlands was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1988 
(53 FR 30455).1 In that order, the Department announced 
estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 16.99 percent for the 
Metallverken Nederland B.V. and all-others.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 53 FR 30455 (August 12, 
1988).
    \2\ In the original investigation, Outokumpu Copper Strip, B.V. 
(``OBV'') was doing business under the name Metallverken Nederland 
B.V., see, March 4, 1999, Substantive Response of OBV at 5 (footnote 
4); also, March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of the domestic 
interested parties at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has conducted several administrative reviews since 
that time.3 The order remains in effect for all producers 
and exporters of brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews (Corrections), 57 
FR 11352 (April 2, 1992); Brass Sheet and Strip From the 
Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 57 
FR 9534 (March 19, 1992) (this review consolidated first and second 
reviews); Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 1324 (January 19, 
1996); Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Amendment to 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 33395 
(June 19, 1997); Brass Sheet and Strip From The Netherlands; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 1324, 
(January 19, 1996); Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 51449 
(October 1, 1997); and Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 49544 
(September 16, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from the 
Netherlands (64 FR 4840) pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)(i) of the 
Act. On February 16, 1999, the Department received a Notice of Intent 
to Participate on behalf of Heyco Metals, Inc. (``Heyco''), Hussey 
Copper Ltd. (``Hussey''), Olin Corporation-Brass Group (``Olin''), 
Outokumpu American Brass (``American Brass''), PMX Industries, Inc. 
(``PMX''), Wieland Metals, Inc. (``Wieland''), Revere Copper Products, 
Inc. (``Revere''), the International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers, the United Auto Workers (Local 2367), and the United 
Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC) (collectively referred to as 
``domestic interested parties''), within the applicable deadline 
specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The 
domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under 
sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act as U.S. brass mills, 
rerollers, and unions whose workers are engaged in the production of 
subject brass sheet and strip in the United States.
    In their Notice of Intent to Participate, the domestic interested 
parties acknowledge that American Brass is related to Outokumpu Copper 
Strip, B.V. (``OBV''),4 a Netherlands producer/exporter of 
the subject merchandise and respondent interested party in this 
proceeding; PMX is related to Poongsan Corp., a Korean producer of the 
domestic like products; and Wieland is related to Wieland Werke 
Metallwerke AG,5 a German producer and exporter of the 
domestic like products. Moreover, American Brass, PMX, and Wieland 
stipulate that they have had experience of importing the subject 
merchandise and/or the domestic like products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ American Brass, indicated that it does not support 
continuation of this antidumping duty order against OBV, see March 
3, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties, at 
page 3, footnote 1; also, see American Brass's February 26, 1999 
letter in Exhibit 8 of OBV' March 4, 1999 substantive response. 
Also, American Brass subsequently disassociated itself from the 
Rebuttal of the domestic interested parties, see the domestic 
interested parties' rebuttal at 2, footnote 1. Consequently, the 
Department excluded American Brass from the domestic interested 
parties in the instant review.
    \5\ Wieland subsequently withdrew its name from the domestic 
interested parties claiming it no longer supports continuation of 
the antidumping order, see March 1, 1999 letter from Counsel to the 
domestic interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received a complete substantive response to the notice of 
initiation from the domestic interested parties on March 3, 1999. In 
their substantive response, the domestic interested parties indicate 
that most of their members were parties to the original investigation 
with a few exceptions: Heyco did not participate in the original 
investigation but fully supports the instant review, and PMX was 
established after the original petitions were filed. The domestic party 
also notes that American Brass was formerly known as American Brass 
Company.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In 1990, OBV's parent company, Outokumpu Oyj, purchased 
American Brass Company (hereinafter referred to as ``the 
acquisition'') and renamed the latter as Outokumpu American Brass 
(``American Brass''), see OBV's March 4, 1999 substantive response 
at 11 & Exhibit 7 thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department received a complete substantive response on behalf 
of OBV on March 4, 1999. In its substantive response, OBV, a Dutch 
producer of the subject merchandise, indicates that it was the 
respondent in the original investigation and a participant in several 
administrative reviews of the order. See March 4, 1999, Substantive 
Response of OBV at 1. Also, OBV states that American Brass belongs to 
the same parent company to which OBV belongs. Id. OBV further notes 
that it is the sole producer of the subject merchandise in the 
Netherlands; therefore, OBV's exports account for 100 percent of the 
subject merchandise imported to the United States.7 Id. at 
9. We received rebuttal responses on behalf of both the domestic 
interested parties and OBV on March 12, 1999.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ OBV also provides the Department with affidavits from the 
Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Government of the Netherlands 
and the Dutch Federation of the Non-Ferrous Industries, certifying 
that OBV is the sole producer of the subject merchandise, see 
Exhibits 6A & 6B in March 4, 1999, Substantive Response of OBV.
    \8\ On March 4, 1999, the domestic interested parties requested 
a four (4) day extension of the deadline for filing rebuttal 
comments to the substantive responses. The Department extended the 
deadline until March 12, 1999 for all participants who are eligible 
to file rebuttal comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the Department's Trade Statistics, the United States Census 
Bureau's IM146s, and the information provided by OBV concerning its 
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States, the Department 
determined that OBV accounted for significantly more than 50 percent of 
the total exports of the subject merchandise over the five calendar 
years preceding the initiation of the sunset review; hence, respondent 
interested parties provided an adequate response.9 Since OBV 
provided an adequate response to the notice of initiation, the 
Department determined to

[[Page 46639]]

conduct a full (240 day) sunset review in accordance with section 
351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As noted earlier, OBV is the only producer of brass sheet 
and strip from the Netherlands, see footnote 7.
    \10\ The domestic interested parties filed comments, pertaining 
to the Department's decision to conduct a full sunset review, in 
which the domestic party concurred with the Department's decision, 
see May 12, 1999 the domestic interested parties' comments on the 
Adequacy of Responses and the Appropriateness of Expedited Sunset 
Review at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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--an order which was in effect on January 
1, 1995, see section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. The Department determined 
that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and 
strip from the Netherlands is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, 
on May 28, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion 
of the preliminary results of this review until not later than August 
20, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the 
Act.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada, Brass Sheet and 
Strip From the Netherlands, Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From 
Mexico, Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Mexico: Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 28983 
(May 28, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is 
conducting 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 original 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 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 preliminary determinations concerning continuation 
or recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, interested parties' 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

Parties' Comments

    The domestic interested parties, in their substantive response of 
March 3, 1999, at 32, argue that dumping of brass sheet and strip by 
OBV will continue if the order is revoked. To support their argument, 
the domestic interested parties point to decreased import volumes of 
the subject merchandise after the issuance of the order, id. at 43-44. 
Although they acknowledge that OBV's average dumping margins have had a 
downward trend and are currently at zero, the domestic interested 
parties, nonetheless, insist that OBV achieved lower weighted-average 
dumping margins primarily by drastically reducing import volumes of the 
subject merchandise after the issuance of the order, id. To illustrate 
their contention, first, the domestic interested parties put forth 
import data pertaining to the period before and the period after the 
issuance of the order. The domestic interested parties compare a three 
year (1984-1986) average of import volumes prior to the issuance of the 
order with a three year (1989-1991) average subsequent to the order: 
15.1 million pounds versus 7.8 million pounds--a 48.3 percent decrease, 
id.
    Next, the domestic interested parties indicate that, with respect 
to imports of brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands, between 1992 
and 1998, imports of the subject merchandise never exceeded 552,000 
pounds. This volume, the domestic interested parties note, is less than 
four percent of the average volume in the pre-petition period, id.
    Therefore, the domestic interested parties conclude that the 
Department must determine that OBV is incapable of selling commercially 
significant quantities of the subject merchandise in the U.S. without 
resuming the practice of dumping. In other words, to the domestic 
interested parties, revocation of the current order would result in 
resumed dumping and major increases in import volumes of the subject 
merchandise, id.
    OBV, in its Substantive Response of March 4, 1999, at 1 and 12-14, 
argues that if the order were revoked, OBV is not likely to resume 
dumping. OBV also states that mere existence of the order and past 
margins, in and of themselves, should not be justifications for the 
maintenance of the order; instead, the Department should consider all 
other relevant information and arguments that OBV put forth in its 
substantive response, id.
    Although OBV points out that the Department has found zero average-
dumping margins for OBV in the two most recent administrative reviews, 
id. at 17,12 OBV's primary contention lies with its notion 
that the comparison of pre- and post-order volumes is a meaningless way 
to determine whether dumping of the subject merchandise would recur. 
While not denying its export volumes of the subject merchandise to the 
U.S. have declined since the issuance of the order, OBV goes one step 
further by asserting that the volume comparison is not a valid measure 
and carries no probative value in determining OBV's ability to continue 
to export without dumping, insofar as OBV poses unique circumstances, 
id. at 14-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See footnote 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to why its situation is unique, OBV claims that it does not have 
to dump to preserve its position in the United States market because it 
has a sister company, American Brass, as a U.S. domestic producer, see 
OBV's substantive response at 15.13 In other words, OBV 
argues that it no longer has to dump the subject merchandise in order 
to maintain or preserve market share in the United States, for its 
sister company American Brass, alone, is adequate in producing and in 
selling the subject merchandise in the United States. Put differently, 
OBV argues that, via its sister company, OBV can maintain its market 
share in the U.S. while exporting significantly smaller quantities than 
before the imposition of the order, id. at 17. Consequently, in a 
situation like this, OBV avers, the fact that imports of subject 
merchandise have significantly declined carries no probative value with 
respect to OBV's ability to continue to export the subject merchandise 
without dumping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See footnote 6, supra. Also, according to OBV, American 
Brass is the largest mill (almost four-times larger than OBV in 
terms of production capacity) in the world for rolled copper and 
copper alloy (i.e., brass) products, see substantive response of OBV 
at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OBV goes on to point out that it is not even permitted to compete 
with American Brass in the U.S. market because OBV and American Brass 
are sister companies, thereby precluding OBV from competing with any 
other domestic producers and eliminating the possibility that OBV would 
even consider dumping its products in the U.S. market.14 
Consequently, OBV states, since the acquisition, it only played and 
will continue to play, a

[[Page 46640]]

relatively minor role as a supplier of brass sheet and strip products 
in the United States, id. at 21-22.15 According to OBV, it 
merely wants the order revoked so that it can avoid costs, burdens, 
legal fees, inherent uncertainties, and management disruptions that are 
intrinsic to administrative reviews of the order, id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ OBV currently exports only a specific type of brass strip 
(radiator strip) in which OBV claims a comparative advantage over 
American Brass, and which American Brass does not produce in 
significant quantity, id. at 27-28.
    \15\ To this effect, OBV presents a company memo, a letter 
written by the President of Outokumpu Copper Products Oy in which 
the President indicated that American Brass should be the sole 
supplier of brass and strip products in the U.S., id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of its assertions, OBV compiles an extensive Economic 
Experts' Report, which lists various findings: assuming no foreseeable 
major changes in the U.S. market, due to a significant investment, OBV 
became world cost leader in radiator strip achieving its objective; 
regarding radiator strip, OBV faces no competition from U.S. mills; OBV 
is operating at full capacity while American Brass's production 
capacity is expanding; the Dutch guilder has been weak against the U.S. 
dollar, and an appreciation of the former is unlikely; OBV will not 
export any products besides radiator cap because it does not want to 
compete with American Brass; and the circumstances surrounding the 
production and importation of the subject merchandise have changed 
significantly and permanently since the original investigation, id. at 
26-29. The upshot of these economic findings is that OBV would not 
resume dumping if the order is revoked, id.
    OBV further elaborates that strong and increasing U.S. domestic 
demand coupled with projected new and technology-induced demand will 
not permit downward pricing pressure on the subject merchandise in the 
U.S. market.16 That is, OBV would not have to sell the 
subject merchandise at less than normal value, id. 29-32. Also, making 
reference to the effects of currency fluctuations upon the imports of 
the subject merchandise, OBV explains that, even if the Dutch guilder 
becomes stronger, such a change would not create an environment in 
which OBV has to resort to dumping. Finally, OBV points out that it has 
reached full production capacity (i.e., no excess capacity), that it 
has well-diversified and well-established world-wide markets, 
17 and that it has made a commitment not to dump in the U.S. 
market, id. 34-39.18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ OBV strongly believes that a new and better product 
``CuproBraze radiator strip,'' which is created to compete with 
aluminum radiator strip, would further increase demand of brass 
products in general including the demand for the subject merchandise 
although CuproBraze itself is not covered by the scope of the order, 
see substantive response of OBV at 30-32.
    \17\ Over the ten year period (1988-1998) after the issuance of 
the order, OBV has exported brass strip products to seventy-five 
countries: exports to the U.S. account for twenty-seven percent of 
OBV's total exports. Furthermore, over ninety percent of OBV's total 
shipments to the U.S. during the period of 1996-1998 is non-subject 
merchandise, id. 36-38.
    \18\ For this last point, OBV stresses that for last two review 
periods covering 1995-96 and 1996-97, the Department's 
administrative reviews show OBV's dumping margins were zero. Also, 
OBV points out that Resolutions Adopted by the Board of Directors of 
OBV on 18 November 1998 resolve not to violate the U.S. antidumping 
laws, see id. at 38 and Exhibit 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, OBV argues strenuously that the Department's normal 
policies and procedures for determining likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping based on pre-and post-order import volumes and 
dumping margins are not valid measurements with respect to OBV. OBV 
urges that a wide range of other information and arguments it has 
submitted should be taken into account by the Department in making its 
likelihood determination; that, on the basis of this additional 
information the Department should find that it is unlikely that OBV 
will continue to dump the subject merchandise in the United States; 
and, consequently, that the Department should revoke the antidumping 
order.
    In their rebuttal, the domestic interested parties emphasize that 
the decline in OBV's weighted-average dumping margin from 16.99 percent 
to the current rate of 0.00 percent was achieved by one method only--
the virtual elimination of its exports to the United States, see 
Rebuttal Response of the domestic interested parties at 
18.20 The domestic interested parties state that OBV's 
behavior can be best described as one with dual characters: OBV has 
high dumping margins when it exports large volumes of the subject 
merchandise to the United States, and has small dumping margins when it 
exports low volumes, id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ To support this, the domestic interested parties utilize 
proprietary information provided by OBV in its March 3, 1999 
substantive response, which seem to indicate that the current rate 
of zero percent is associated with rather insignificant import 
volumes of the subject merchandise, compared to those of pre-order 
volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding OBV's argument that the Department to consider various 
other factors outside of dumping margins and import volumes, the 
domestic interested parties urge that the Department should not be 
distracted by OBV's speculative contentions and claims, id. at 20. The 
domestic interested parties claim that the acquisition does not change 
the fact that, previously, OBV was unable to sell brass sheet and strip 
without dumping. Furthermore, the evidence (with its zero current 
dumping margin, OBV is only exporting very small, commercially 
insignificant volumes) indicates that, currently, OBV cannot sell in 
the United States without dumping.
    While citing the case of Wieland-Werke AG, an exporter of brass 
sheet and strip from Germany, the domestic interested parties urge the 
Department to be consistent with the findings of that 
review.21 Also, the domestic interested parties argue that 
OBV's ``Economic Experts Report'' is, in many respects, flawed and that 
it makes unsupported and incorrect claims, id. at 22. In short, the 
domestic interested parties argue that OBV's characterization of the 
multinational nature of the automotive industry is completely 
irrelevant in ascertaining the possibility of price discrimination; 
that OBV used the wrong period in discerning ``price effects of Dutch 
imports''; and that OBV's usage of aggregate import data provide no 
meaningful information with respect to relative product mix of imports 
of like products from various countries, id. at 22-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to 
Revoke in Part, 61 FR 49727 (September 23, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In concluding their rebuttal, the domestic interested parties 
contend that OBV has not demonstrated why the Department should 
consider other factors, outside of import volumes and dumping margins, 
in determining whether continuation or recurrence of dumping of the 
subject merchandise is likely if the order is revoked. As in their 
substantive response, the domestic interested parties urge the 
Department to find that dumping would recur were the order revoked.
    OBV, in its rebuttal to the substantive response of the domestic 
interested parties, restates its positions from its own substantive 
response: dumping will not recur if the order is revoked because its 
situation is unique, and import levels do not provide a reliable 
indicator of the likelihood of OBV's resumption of dumping, see OBV's 
March 12, 1999 Rebuttal to Petitioners' Substantive Response at 1-3.
    OBV stresses, again, that its pre- and post-order import volumes of 
the subject merchandise are not valid measurements and bear absolutely 
no probative value in the Department's making of likelihood 
determination because American Brass maintains market share for OBV 
without OBV having to dump in the United States. In

[[Page 46641]]

addition, OBV argues that, because of the size of American Brass and 
the large investment that Outokumpu OYJ has made in it, American Brass 
clearly has virtually exclusive responsibility for the sale of the 
broad range of brass sheet and strip products required by U.S. 
customers, id. at 2-3. Therefore, OBV implies, there is no need for OBV 
to resume dumping were the order revoked.

Department's Determination

    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. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department indicates 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.)
    The order on brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands remains in 
place for the sole respondent interested party: OBV.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See footnote 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department 
considered whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis 
after the issuance of the order. Although dumping of the subject 
merchandise continued until 1991 at varying and generally declining 
degrees, we preliminarily determine that OBV did not dump, at any level 
above de minimis, during the periods, 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 (last two 
administrative review periods).23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See footnote 3, supra, for the list of final determinations 
of administrative reviews in which the Department found zero 
weighted-average margins for OBV in respective period of 
investigation. Also, see OBV's substantive response at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to import volumes of the subject merchandise, the data 
supplied by both OBV and the domestic interested parties indicate that, 
since the imposition of the order, import volumes of the subject 
merchandise have declined substantially. Moreover, data in United 
States Census Bureau IM146s and import data from the United States 
International Trade Commission clearly indicate that imports of the 
subject merchandise have declined over the life of the order: in 1985, 
import volumes of brass sheet and strip exceeded 20 million pounds; 
whereas, in 1998 import volumes were well under 1 million pounds. In 
addition, as noted above, OBV does not negate the statistics which show 
that OBV's import volumes of the subject merchandise decreased 
significantly during the life of the order. Therefore, the Department 
preliminarily determines that import volumes of the subject merchandise 
decreased significantly after the issuance of the order.
    Normally, as per (c) of section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin (a situation in which dumping is eliminated after the issuance 
of the order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined 
significantly), the Department would determine that dumping is likely 
to recur if the order is revoked. Nonetheless, in the instant case, the 
Department has decided to consider other relevant information and 
arguments, which OBV provides to the Department in its substantive 
response.
    First and foremost, the Department agrees with OBV's contention 
that the acquisition of American Brass makes OBV's position in the U.S. 
market rather unique: OBV no longer has to dump in order to supply in 
the U.S. market because its much bigger sister company, American Brass, 
has more than adequate capacity to meet the demand in the U.S. market 
for the subject merchandise. The fact that immediately after the 
acquisition, imports of the subject merchandise fell to zero and stayed 
zero until 1995, also buttresses the above notion that American Brass 
basically took over OBV's exports of the subject merchandise.
    Consequently, OBV's argument that it does not make sense for OBV to 
jeopardize the economic well being of American Brass by undercutting 
the prices of the subject merchandise in the U.S. by resuming dumping, 
is persuasive. This point is especially relevant considering Outokumpu 
OYJ spent hundreds of millions of dollars in purchasing and investing 
in American Brass.
    In addition, given the facts of this case, we believe that the zero 
dumping margins calculated in the most recent reviews to be probative: 
when OBV resumed exporting the subject merchandise to the United States 
in 1996, it could export without dumping.24 This is contrary 
to domestic interested parties' contention that OBV cannot export the 
subject merchandise without dumping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See footnote 3, for the Department's findings that OBV did 
not dump during 1995-1996 and 1996-1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering all the relevant information and arguments provided by 
OBV, the Department is convinced that American Brass bears the primary 
responsibility of satisfying the U.S. customers and that OBV will play 
a minor role by supplying only radiator strip at a normal price in the 
U.S. market. Therefore, in conclusion, although import volumes of the 
subject merchandise declined significantly after the issuance of the 
order, since the two most recent administrative reviews indicate that 
dumping of the subject merchandise has been eliminated, and since OBV 
presents effective ``other relevant information and arguments'' 
explaining why it is unlikely that OBV would resume dumping in the 
U.S., the Department preliminarily determines that recurrence of 
dumping of brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands is not likely if 
the order is 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.)
    However, since the Department determined that dumping would not be 
likely to recur, the question of magnitude of margin is moot.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that 
revocation of the antidumping duty order would not be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR

[[Page 46642]]

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held on October 20, 
1999. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than October 
11, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, 
which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed 
not later than October 18, 1999. The Department will issue a notice of 
final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of 
its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than 
December 28, 1999.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 20, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-22198 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P