[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