[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46642-46646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-601]


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

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

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

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

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 Canada (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 domestic interested parties 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 be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary 
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 & Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050 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'').

Scope

    Imports covered by this order are shipments of brass sheet and 
strip, other than leaded or tinned, from Canada. The chemical 
composition of the subject merchandise is defined in the Copper 
Development Association (C.D.A.) 200 Series or the Unified Numbering 
System (U.N.S.) C2000 Series. This order does not cover products the 
chemical compositions of which are defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S. 
series. In physical dimensions, the products covered by this order have 
a solid rectangular cross section over 0.006 inches (0.15 millimeters) 
through 0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished thickness or gauge, 
regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse wound), and cut-
to-length products are included. The merchandise is currently 
classifiable under item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTS''). The HTS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The 
written description remains dispositive.
    On February 28, 1990, the Department determined that Arrowhead 
Metals Limited (``Arrowhead'') had officially gone out of business and, 
therefore, would no longer be subject to the order (55 FR 39682, 
September 28, 1990). On November 8, 1991, the Department revoked the 
order with regard to Ratcliffs/Severn Limited (``Ratcliffs'') (56 FR 
57317, November 8, 1991). Finally, on May 13, 1992, the Department 
determined that Wolverine Tube, Inc. (``Wolverine'') had acquired the 
production facilities of Noranda Metals, Inc. (``Noranda'') and, 
therefore, had become the successor-in-interest to Noranda (57 FR 
20460, May 13, 1992). Only Arrowhead and Noranda were involved in the 
original investigation. Due to the revocations of the order for 
Arrowhead and Ratcliffs, Wolverine is currently the only company 
subject to the order.

History of the Order

    The antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada was 
published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1217). 
During the original investigation, the Department calculated a dumping 
margin of 2.51 percent for Arrowhead and 11.54 percent for Noranda. The 
Department also established an all others rate of 8.10 percent.
    Since that time the Department has conducted eight administrative 
reviews of this order.6 On May 13, 1992, the Department 
determined that Wolverine was the successor-in-interest to Noranda (57 
FR 20460). As discussed in the section above, the only known producer/
exporter currently subject to the order is Wolverine. The Department 
notes that, to date, there have been no duty absorption findings in 
this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 31414 (August 2, 
1990); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results and 
Revocation, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 
FR 57317 (November 8, 1991); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 
(May 13, 1992) (``1990 Review Final''); Brass Sheet and Strip from 
Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 
FR 49582 (September 26, 1995); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 46618 
(September 4, 1996); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16759 
(April 8, 1997); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 33037 (January 17, 
1998); and Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To 
Revoke Order in Part; issued on August 9, 1999, the expected date of 
publication in the Federal Register is August 24, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada (64 FR 
4840) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On February 16, 1999, the 
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of the 
Heyco Metals, Inc., Hussey Copper Ltd., Olin Corporation-Brass Group, 
Outokumpu American Brass, PMX Industries, Inc., Revere Copper Products, 
Inc., the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
Workers, the United Auto

[[Page 46643]]

Workers, and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC) 
(collectively, ``the 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 (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. We received a 
complete substantive response to the notice of initiation from the 
domestic interested parties on March 3, 1999. We received a complete 
substantive response on behalf of Wolverine on March 4, 1999. In its 
substantive response, Wolverine, a Canadian producer of brass sheet and 
strip, claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(A) of the 
Act. We received rebuttal responses on behalf of both the domestic 
interested parties and Wolverine on March 12, 1999.
    Using the Department's trade statistics, the United States Census 
Bureau's IM146 Reports, and the information provided by Wolverine 
concerning its exports to the United States, and the fact that 
Wolverine is the only company still subject to the order, the 
Department determined that Wolverine accounted for significantly more 
than 50 percent of the value of total exports of the subject 
merchandise over the five calendar years preceding the initiation of 
the sunset review. Therefore, the Department determined that respondent 
interested parties provided an adequate response to the notice of 
initiation, and the Department determined to conduct a full (240 day) 
sunset review in accordance with section 351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. 
    The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping 
duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada 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 21, 
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.1 
The Department, therefore, intends to issue the final results of this 
review not later than December 28, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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(b) 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 likely to prevail 
are discussed below. In addition, parties' comments with respect to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin 
likely to prevail are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

Parties' Comments

    In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties state 
that it is highly likely that dumping would continue if the order were 
revoked. (See Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested Parties 
of March 3, 1999 at 31.) The domestic interested parties recognize 
that, currently, only Wolverine is subject to the order.
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
either fallen dramatically or ceased following imposition of the 
antidumping duty order, the domestic interested parties argue that 
imports of the subject merchandise from Canada declined significantly. 
To illustrate this, the domestic interested parties state that from 
1983 to 1985, the three years before imposition of the order, Canadian 
imports of brass sheet and strip averaged 10.2 million pounds. However, 
in 1987, the year immediately after the imposition of the order, 
Canadian imports fell to 6.8 million pounds and only averaged 
approximately 7 million pounds for the period from 1987 to 1989. (See 
Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested Parties at 35-36.)
    Additionally, the domestic interested parties argue that the 
increase in the dumping margins for Arrowhead and Noranda in 1990 
caused imports to fall from roughly 6 million pounds in 1989 to below 2 
million pounds in 1990. The domestic interested parties also argue that 
the only reason for the later reduction in Wolverine's margins (to de 
minimis levels) was due to the fact that it was only selling modest 
volumes of subject brass sheet and strip in the United States. (See 
Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested Parties of March 3, 
1999 at 36.) Finally, the domestic industry claims that imports of 
brass sheet and strip from Canada have risen by 11 million pounds in 
1998 and that they believe Wolverine resumed significant volumes and 
dumping of exports of the subject merchandise to the United States in 
the belief that revocation would occur in mid-1998.
    In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argue that the 
behavior of Canadian producers and exporters, specifically Wolverine, 
indicates that commercially significant volumes of brass sheet and 
strip cannot be sold in the United States without dumping.
    Wolverine, in its substantive response of March 4, 1999, argues 
that it is in a very unique position, as compared to other companies in 
other sunset reviews of antidumping duty orders. The reason for this is 
that, according to the company, the Department has found a de minimis 
dumping margin for Wolverine in the preliminary and final results of 
each administrative review conducted by the Department since the 
1993.2 Furthermore, Wolverine argues that, were it not for 
the Department's error in the final results of the 1996 administrative 
review which resulted in a dumping margin in excess of de minimis, the 
Department likely would have revoked the order with respect to 
Wolverine in the final results. Between the preliminary results of the 
1996 administrative review, in which the

[[Page 46644]]

Department preliminarily determined to revoke the order with respect to 
Wolverine, and the final results of that review, the Department 
collected no additional information that would cause the preliminary 
results to change and, therefore, according to Wolverine, the order 
should have been revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 1560 (January 22, 
1996); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 46618 (September 4, 
1996); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16759 (April 8, 1997); 
Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 6039 (February 8, 
1999). In April 1999, the Department granted Wolverine's request to 
terminate the 1993 administrative review (63 FR 23269). In the final 
results of the 1996 administrative review, the Department calculated 
an above de minimis margin for Wolverine. However, the final results 
of the 1996 administrative review are currently being reviewed by a 
NAFTA Dispute Resolution Panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, Wolverine provided, in the course of this sunset 
review, additional information in support of its proposition that 
dumping is unlikely to resume if Wolverine were revoked from the order. 
Wolverine asserts that it services small customers that require small 
quantities of a variety of products and that its ``market niche'' in 
North America appears to be largely saturated. Wolverine argues that 
its production capacity is limited and that it has no excess capacity 
to use to manufacture additional subject merchandise for export to the 
United States. In addition, Wolverine contends that its budgeting and 
marketing processes are focused on the development of non-subject 
merchandise and increasing Canadian sales. Lastly, Wolverine asserts 
that its sales process incorporates monitoring to ensure against future 
dumping.
    In rebuttal, the domestic interested parties argue that Wolverine 
has shipped very small volumes of subject merchandise to the United 
States over the past several years and that these volumes are far below 
the total volume of imports of subject merchandise from Canada around 
the time of the imposition of the order. The domestic interested 
parties further argue that the Department's preliminary determination 
in the 1996 administrative review should not be relied upon in making 
sunset determinations. Furthermore, the domestic interested parties 
argue that the 0.67 percent dumping margin found in the 1996 
administrative review should stand, despite the Department's admission 
of error in the calculation of Wolverine's dumping margin.
    In summation, the domestic interested parties argue that the 
Department should conclude that revocation of the Canadian antidumping 
duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. 
The domestic interested parties assert that both Noranda and Wolverine 
persisted in dumping at increased rates for several years after the 
order entered into force and Wolverine has managed to obtain de minimis 
or zero dumping margins only in periods when it has had U.S. sales 
volumes so low as to not be in commercial quantities. Because of this, 
the domestic interested parties argue that the Department should find a 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.
    In its rebuttal comments, Wolverine argue that it has sold and 
continues to sell commercially meaningful and increasing volumes of 
subject merchandise in the United States without dumping. Wolverines 
further argues that the Department has determined, in previous 
administrative reviews, that Wolverine's sales in the United States are 
of commercially meaningful volumes. Wolverine also asserts that 13-year 
old dumping margins from the investigation in this proceeding are 
logically, factually, and legally irrelevant. Wolverine asserts that 
prior to its acquisition of Noranda's Fergus facility in 1988, it 
(Wolverine) had no legal or managerial responsibility for the Fergus 
plant. Thus, Noranda's pricing policies and costs of production, 
presumably reflected in the Department's calculation of Noranda's 
dumping margin in the investigation, have no relevance to Wolverine's 
dumping margins or the Department's sunset determination, with respect 
to likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.

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. The Department clarified that determinations 
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2 
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally 
will determine that revocation of a 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. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
    As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, the existence of dumping 
margins after the order, or the cessation of imports after the order, 
is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping. If companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order 
in place, it is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the 
discipline were revoked. If imports cease after the order is issued, it 
is reasonable to assume that the exporters could not sell in the United 
States without dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would 
have to resume dumping.
    On August 9, 1999, the Department issued its final results of the 
1997 administrative review.3 In that determination, the 
Department found an above de minimis dumping margin of 0.71 percent for 
Wolverine. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This determination was issued on August 9, 1999, however, it 
has not yet been published. The expected date of publication in the 
Federal Register is August 24, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
following the imposition of the order, the Department has reviewed the 
U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports, the final results and publicly ranged 
import volumes from previous administrative reviews, and participants' 
submissions in this sunset review. Based on these sources, we find that 
imports of subject merchandise have existed throughout the life of the 
order, and continue to exist.4 However, an examination of 
this information demonstrates a significant decrease in the import 
volumes of subject merchandise during the periods in which the 
Department calculated de minimis dumping margins for Wolverine compared 
with the periods in which Wolverine had significant dumping margins. 
The Department finds that such a situation may indicate that Wolverine 
was only able to eliminate dumping by significantly reducing its 
exports of subject merchandise to the United States (see Memo to File, 
Re: Import Volumes of Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada, dated August 
19, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Department notes, as stated in Brass Sheet and Strip 
from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992), that there were no imports of 
subject merchandise from Noranda/Wolverine during calendar year 
1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 46645]]

of dumping. A deposit rate above a de minimis level continues in effect 
for imports of the subject merchandise from the only known Canadian 
producer/exporter. Therefore, given that dumping has continued during 
the life of the order, the Department preliminarily determines that 
dumping is likely to continue if the order were revoked.
    Because the Department is basing its likelihood determination on 
the continued existence of above de minimis dumping margins and 
continued imports of the subject merchandise, it is not necessary to 
address parties comments concerning the reduction in import volumes of 
the subject merchandise over the life of the order, the de minimis 
dumping margins found by the Department in previous administrative 
reviews, Wolverine's budgeting and marketing process, its market 
demographics, or its sales monitoring program.

Magnitude of the Margin

Parties' Comments

    In its substantive and rebuttal responses, the domestic interested 
parties assert that a dumping margin of 25.49 percent, from the 1992 
administrative review, is likely to prevail if the order were to be 
revoked because it was calculated based upon the Department's first 
analysis of Wolverine's data after Wolverine had taken over Noranda's 
Fergus facility and because it is the highest margin calculated by the 
Department for Wolverine. The domestic interested parties argue that in 
the three year period before the filing of the petition (1983-1985), 
imports of brass sheet and strip from Canada averaged 10.2 million 
pounds annually. However, in the first full year following the 
imposition of the order (1987), imports from Canada fell to 6.8 million 
pounds. Since 1990, import volumes of the subject merchandise have 
remained below 2 million pounds. The domestic interested parties 
further argue that the de minimis margins obtained by Wolverine for the 
calendar years 1995, 1996, and 1997, have only been achieved through a 
substantial reduction in its exports of the subject merchandise.
    The domestic interested parties claim, however, that in 1998, 
imports of brass sheet and strip surged by 11 million pounds. It 
asserts that Wolverine resumed significant volumes and dumping of 
exports of the subject merchandise to the United States in the belief 
that revocation would occur in mid-1998. Based on these factors, the 
domestic interested parties assert that this apparent pattern of 
behavior by Wolverine is indicative of the fact that Wolverine cannot 
sell any commercially meaningful volumes of the subject merchandise in 
the United States without dumping and, therefore, the report of a de 
minimis margin to the Commission would be inappropriate.
    Wolverine, in its substantive and rebuttal responses, argues that 
the dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked is 
zero. Wolverine asserts that it has demonstrated this to the Department 
in four consecutive administrative reviews. Further, they argue that 
the dumping margin established for Wolverine in the 1994 administrative 
review was based on the best information available and is in no way 
relevant to the dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were to 
be revoked. In addition, the 21.32 percent dumping margin calculated 
for Noranda and subsequently assigned to Wolverine in the 1990 
administrative review also is inappropriate. Wolverine argues that 
Noranda's pricing policies and costs of production, presumably 
reflected in the Department's calculation of Noranda's dumping margin 
in the original investigation and subsequent two administrative 
reviews, have no relevance to Wolverine's dumping margins because 
Wolverine had no affiliation with Noranda at the time the 21.32 percent 
dumping margin was calculated.

Department's Determination

    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 brass sheet and strip from Canada (51 FR 44319, 
December 9, 1986). 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.
    The Department disagrees with the domestic interested parties, in 
part, concerning the dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were 
to be revoked. The domestic interested parties' argument, that the 
Department should use the 25.49 percent dumping margin from the 1992 
administrative review because it is the first dumping margin calculated 
after the Department made a successor-in-interest determination (and is 
the highest dumping margin ever calculated in the proceeding) is 
inconsistent with the Department's ``successorship'' finding.
    In the 1990 administrative review, the Department examined 
Wolverine's purchase of Noranda in order to make its ``successorship'' 
determination. See 1990 Review Final, 57 FR at 20461. At issue in 
``successorship'' cases is the appropriate rate to be assigned to 
entities affected by, for example, an acquisition of all or part of 
another company's assets, a transfer of another company's corporate 
control, or some other change which raises the questions of the 
company's status in the proceeding. In determining the appropriate 
rate, the Department examines the totality of circumstances. In the 
1990 Review Final, therefore, after considering all of the information 
on the record, the Department determined that Wolverine should receive 
the same cash deposit rate as Noranda because Wolverine was essentially 
the same business operation as Noranda. Specifically, the Department 
found that production facilities, essential personnel, customers, and 
management were transferred from Noranda to Wolverine without 
interruption. Id. Because the Department has previously determined 
that, at the time of the purchase of Noranda by Wolverine, there was no 
change in the business operations of the company, the domestic 
interested parties' argument that there is a distinction between 
Wolverine and Noranda for the purposes of dumping margin calculations 
provides insufficient reason for the Department to choose the ``first'' 
rate calculated for Wolverine as the dumping margin likely to prevail 
if the order were to be revoked.
    With respect to the decreases in import volumes during the life of 
the order, the Department disagrees with the domestic industry's 
interpretation and evaluation. After an examination of the record in 
this proceeding as well as the submissions from the participants in 
this sunset review, the Department found that Wolverine is currently 
the only Canadian producer and/or exporter of the subject merchandise. 
Therefore, the Department finds that it would be

[[Page 46646]]

unreasonable to compare the present import volumes of Wolverine with 
the pre-order import volumes of two (or more) producers/exporters who 
were subject to the order in 1987. If this comparison were made, the 
Department would almost certainly find that total imports had decreased 
over the life of the order because there are fewer producers/exporters 
who are currently subject to the order. Because of this, the Department 
believes that it is more appropriate to examine all available import 
volumes for Wolverine (Noranda) over the life of the order.
    With respect to the domestic interested parties' claims concerning 
the surge in imports in 1998, the Department is not persuaded by its 
argument. The Department agrees with Wolverine and the proprietary 
argument that it has made concerning this purported surge. As a result 
of the information concerning this increase in import volumes provided 
by both the domestic industry and Wolverine, the Department 
preliminarily finds that there was no surge in imports of subject 
merchandise from Wolverine in calendar year 1998 (see Memo to File, Re: 
1998 Import Volume Surge, dated August 19, 1999).
    However, the Department also disagrees with Wolverine's argument 
concerning the dumping margin likely to prevail. 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. More importantly, a deposit rate above a de minimis level 
continues in effect for imports of the subject merchandise from 
Wolverine. Because a dumping margin above a de minimis level is 
currently in effect and because imports of the subject merchandise 
continue, we find the use of a zero dumping margin to be inappropriate 
to report to the Commission.
    Furthermore, Wolverine's argument implies that the Department 
should report a more recently calculated dumping margin to the 
Commission. The Department disagrees with Wolverine's basis for this 
argument. According to the SAA at 890-91 and the House Report at 64, 
declining (or no) dumping margins accompanied by steady or increasing 
imports may indicate that companies do not have to dump in order to 
maintain market share. As a result, decreasing margins may be more 
representative of a company's behavior in the absence of the order. In 
the instant case, however, the zero or de minimis dumping margins have 
not been accompanied by steady or increasing imports. Instead, as noted 
above, they have been associated with periods where Wolverine's imports 
were significantly below its imports in prior periods.
    Based on the above analysis, the Department finds the margin from 
the original investigation is the only calculated rate that reflects 
the behavior of producers and exporters without the discipline of the 
order. Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we 
preliminarily determine that the margin calculated in the Department's 
original investigation is probative of the behavior of Canadian 
producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip if the order were 
revoked. We will report to the Commission the company-specific and all 
others rates from the original investigation contained in the 
Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that 
revocation of the order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping at the margins listed below: 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On September 28, 1990, the Department acknowledged that 
Arrowhead had gone out of business (see Brass Sheet and Strip From 
Canada; Termination in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 55 FR 39682 (September 28, 1990).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine (formerly Noranda)...............................        11.54
All Others.................................................         8.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 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. 99-22199 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P