[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