[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 165 (Thursday, August 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46651-46655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-504]


Preliminary Results of Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking 
Ware From Mexico

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Sunset Review: porcelain-on-
steel cooking ware from Mexico.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from Mexico 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 comments filed on behalf of domestic 
and respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting a full 
sunset review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily 
finds that revocation of the antidumping 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: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-3207 
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

[[Page 46652]]

the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews 
are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') 
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 
(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''). Guidance on methodological 
or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset 
reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies 
Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping 
and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 
1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is 
porcelain-on-steel (``POS'') cooking ware from Mexico, which includes 
tea kettles, that do not have self-contained electric heating elements. 
All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or 
glazed with vitreous glasses. This merchandise is currently 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'') subheading 7323.94.00. Kitchenware currently entering under 
HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not subject to the order. Although 
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs 
purposes, our written description of the scope remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    On October 10, 1986, the Department issued a final determination of 
sales at less than fair value on POS cooking ware from 
Mexico.1 On December 2, 1986, the Department's antidumping 
duty order on the subject merchandise was published in the Federal 
Register (51 FR 43415).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final 
Determination of Sales at less than Fair Value, 51 FR 36435 (October 
10, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the issuance of the order, Department has conducted several 
administrative reviews of the order on POS cooking ware from 
Mexico.2 The order remains in effect for all producers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise. In the amended final results of 
the eleventh administrative review of this antidumping duty order, the 
Department found that antidumping duties were being absorbed by Cinsa 
and by ENASA. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 21061(May 
22, 1990); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 39186 
(September 25, 1990); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 32095 
(June 8, 1993); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 4332 (Aug. 
16, 1993), as amended, Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 23694 
(May 6, 1994), and Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in 
Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR 53643 (October 6, 1998); 
Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 2378 (January 9, 
1995), as amended, Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; 
Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 60 FR 7521 (February 8, 1995), as amended, Porcelain-On-
Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Amended Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review in Accordance with Decision Upon Remand, 
61 FR 53350 (October 11, 1996); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from 
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 
FR 54616 (October 21, 1996); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from 
Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 
FR 25908 (May 12, 1997), as amended, Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware 
from Mexico; Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 35153 (June 30, 1997); Porcelain-On-
Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496 (August 7, 1997), as amended, 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Notice of Panel Decision 
and Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
in Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 64 FR 42916 (August 6, 
1999); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Administrative Review, 61 FR 15463 
(April 8, 1996); Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 38373 (July 
16, 1998), as amended, Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; 
Amendment to Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 43594 (August 13, 1998); and Porcelain-On-Steel 
Cooking Ware from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 26934 (May 18, 1999), as amended, 
Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Mexico; Amended Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 1, 
1999).
    \3\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico; Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 
1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping order on POS cooking ware from Mexico, pursuant to 
section 751(c). On February 16, 1999 we received a Notice of Intent to 
Participate on behalf of Columbian Home Products, LLC (``CHP''), within 
the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. CHP claimed interested party status under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of POS cooking ware. CHP 
asserts that it is the only domestic producer of POS cooking ware.
    We received complete substantive responses to the notice of 
initiation on March 3, 1999, on behalf of CHP, and Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. 
(``Cinsa'') and Emaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V. (``ENASA'') 
(collectively ``respondents''). Cinsa and ENASA claimed interested 
party status within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(A) as foreign 
manufacturers and exporters of POS cooking ware from Mexico. Cinsa 
contends that it manufactures light-gauge POS cooking ware, while ENASA 
contends that it manufactures heavy-gauge POS cooking ware. Cinsa 
asserts that it was a respondent in the original investigation and 
participant in all completed administrative reviews conducted by the 
Department. ENASA asserts that it has been a participant in reviews of 
this order since it began exporting to the United States (8th and 10th 
administrative review). Cinsa and ENASA further note that they are 
respondents in the 11th review and 12th review being conducted by the 
Department at the time of their submission.
    In their substantive response, respondents provided information on 
the value of their exports of the subject merchandise for the calendar 
years 1994 to 1997, as well as the total value of exports of the 
subject merchandise to the U.S. Respondents represent significantly 
more than 50 percent of the value of total exports of the subject 
merchandise over the past five calendar years preceding the 
investigation of the sunset reviews. Because domestic and respondent 
interested parties provided adequate responses to the notice of 
initiation, the Department is conducting a full sunset review in 
accordance with section 351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.
    On May 28, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review 
of the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from Mexico 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). As a 
result of this determination, 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See POS Cooking Ware from Mexico: Extension of Time Limit 
for Preliminary Results of Five-Year Reviews et. al., 64 FR 28983 
(May 28, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adequacy

    In its rebuttal comments, CHP argues that the Department should 
determine that the foreign producers' response to

[[Page 46653]]

the notice of initiation was inadequate and, therefore, the Department 
should conduct an expedited review. CHP asserts that the regulations 
require respondent interested parties to submit export data for 
calendar years 1994 through 1998. CHP then argues that since 
respondents did not submit export data for calendar year 1998 and the 
data submitted for 1994 through 1997 was not submitted on a calendar 
year basis, respondents' submission must be viewed as incomplete. In 
conclusion, CHP asserts that because no other Mexican producers 
submitted a response to the Notice of Initiation, the Department has 
not received a complete substantive response from any respondent 
interested party. As a result, CHP argues that the Department should 
issue an expedited determination based on facts available and apply an 
adverse inference against respondents.
    In the preamble to the Sunset Regulations the Department explained 
that it may consider a substantive response that does not contain all 
of the information required to be complete where a party is unable to 
report certain required information and provides a reasonable 
explanation as to why it is unable to provide such information. In 
their substantive response, respondents explained that they were 
providing annual (December-November) export statistics corresponding to 
the administrative reviews conducted by the Department. Further, 
because the data on sales of subject merchandise during the 12th 
administrative review had not yet been calculated, respondents 
explained that data for the most recent year was not yet available. 
Cinsa explained that its accounting records are maintained on the basis 
of all light gauge POS products, which includes subject and non-subject 
merchandise. Therefore, the computerized sales tapes prepared for the 
Department's administrative reviews enable it to distinguish between 
subject and non-subject merchandise.
    We determine that the respondents provided a reasonable explanation 
as to why information was not yet available and was reported based on a 
different time period. We note that our adequacy determinations are 
intended to determine whether there is sufficient participation of 
interested parties to warrant a full review. Where, as in this review, 
respondents have provided information sufficient to enable us to make 
that determination along with a reasonable explanation for any 
discrepancies, we do not intend to require respondents to recalculate 
information which is otherwise available in a slightly altered form. 
Therefore, we continue to conclude that we received adequate response 
from respondent interested parties to warrant a full review.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is 
conducting this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping. Section 752(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in making this 
determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average 
dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews 
and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period 
before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping order. 
Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide 
to the International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the 
magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is 
revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below. 
In addition, parties' comments with respect to the 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

    In its substantive response CHP refers to the Department's Sunset 
Policy Bulletin and argues that the Department should find that dumping 
is likely to continue at significant margins if the order is revoked. 
In support of its assertion that dumping has continued over the life of 
the order, CHP cites to the final results of administrative reviews 
that have been completed. CHP asserts that Cinsa's company-specific 
margin has increased since the order was imposed from 1.63 percent in 
the first administrative review to 16.91 percent in the tenth review, 
and most recently to 64.02 percent in the preliminary results of the 
eleventh review.
    With respect to import levels, CHP refers to official import 
statistics from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census to support 
its assertion that imports from Mexico have declined. Specifically, CHP 
asserts a 50 percent decrease in imports from 1994 (3.3 million units) 
to 1998 (1.7 million units).
    CHP argues that this evidence is highly probative that dumping 
would be likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked. In 
conclusion, CHP argues that the combination of declining import volumes 
and simultaneously increasing dumping margins demonstrates that Mexican 
producers are unable to sell significant volumes of POS cooking ware in 
the United States without dumping.
    The respondents argue revocation of the order would have minimal or 
de minimis effects on the POS cookware market in the United States. 
Respondents assert that the 17.47 percent margin assigned to Cinsa 
(from the investigation) and the 2.74 percent margin assigned to ENASA 
(from the 9th review) are substantially lower than the 29.52 percent 
weighted-average margin assigned to all others in the original 
investigation. Further, respondents assert that their dumping margins 
have generally declined from such initiation levels while their exports 
to the United States and market share of Mexican exports of POS cooking 
ware have increased significantly. On these bases, respondents argue 
that they are able to market and sell their merchandise in the United 
States without high dumping margins.
    Additionally, respondents argue that revocation of the order would 
not result in a sudden increase in their exports because the Mexican 
domestic market is their primary market. Citing to official United 
States import statistics, respondents assert that in 1998, the Mexican 
share of total U.S. imports of POS cooking ware was only 6.66 percent 
and that imports from Mexico declined by approximately 57 percent from 
1994 to 1998. Finally, respondents assert that even though Mexican 
imports of subject merchandise have declined since 1994, the imports in 
1998 are still approximately 85 percent higher than they were in 1985, 
the year prior to the issuance of the order.
    In its rebuttal comments CHP argues that contrary to respondents' 
assertion, dumping margins have increased during the history of this 
proceeding. CHP asserts that Cinsa's margin has steadily increased 
since the third administrative review and, as of the tenth review, is 
16.91 percent. Further, CHP argues that ENASA's margin in the tenth 
review is 61.66 percent. CHP also argues that, if as respondents argue, 
dumping is not likely to continue or recur, respondents should argue 
that any margin likely to prevail is zero, not the 12.85 to 23.72 
percent range respondents have suggested is the margin likely to 
prevail if the order were revoked. On the basis of above de minimis 
margins in every

[[Page 46654]]

review, margins which have increased to historically high levels in the 
most recently completed administrative review, CHP argues that the 
Department should determine that revocation of this order would be 
likely to lead to a continuation of dumping.
    The respondents did not address likelihood in their rebuttal 
comments.

Department's Preliminary 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 an antidumping 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 is highly probative of the likelihood of the 
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.
    We agree with CHP that dumping margins above de minimis have 
continued over the life of the order. Further, deposit rates above de 
minimis remain in effect for all exports of POS cooking ware from 
Mexico. Using statistics provided by CHP and respondents, we find that 
imports have fluctuated over the order; steadily increasing in both 
volume and value from 1985 through 1994 and then steadily decreasing 
through 1998. Imports in 1998, however, remain slightly higher in value 
than in 1985 and are slightly lower in volume. Therefore, we do not 
agree with CHP's arguments that we should find likelihood on the basis 
of import volumes. However, since dumping margins have continued over 
the life of the order, the Department preliminarily determines that 
dumping is likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

Parties' Comments

    CHP asserts that, in this case, the Department should follow the 
guidance of the SAA and the Sunset Policy Bulletin, and provide to the 
Commission the margins from the original investigation. CHP suggests 
the Department apply 17.47 percent for Cinsa and 29.52, the ``all 
others'' rate from the original investigation should apply to all 
respondents that did not begin shipping until after the order was 
issued. Additionally, CHP notes that, in the eleventh review, the 
Department made a preliminary finding of duty absorption.
    Respondents note that, according to the Sunset Policy Bulletin the 
Department normally determines that the weighted-average dumping 
margins from the original investigation are the margins likely to 
prevail if the antidumping duty order is revoked. Respondents assert, 
however, that in this case, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, 
the Department should apply a more recently calculated margin because 
declining dumping margins have been accompanied by steady or increasing 
imports which indicates that foreign companies do not have to dump to 
maintain market share in the United States and that dumping is less 
likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked.
    Respondents argue that Cinsa's company-specific margins have always 
been lower than the weighted-average margin calculated in the original 
investigation. Further, ENASA's first margin was significantly lower 
than the weighted-average margin from the original investigation. In 
addition, respondents argue that overall imports from Mexico and from 
respondents have increased significantly since the imposition of the 
order, although having declined since their 1994 peak.
    Respondents argue that the weighted-average margin from the 
original investigation (i.e., the all others rate of 29.52 percent) was 
calculated on the basis of the margin calculated for Cinsa (17.47 
percent) and the substantially higher margin calculated for Troqueles Y 
Esmaltes, S.A. de C.V. (``TRES''), later known as Aceros 
Porcelanizados, S.A. de C.V. (``APSA''). Because TRES/APSA no longer 
exists, respondents argue that use of a weighted-average margin 
incorporating the TRES/APSA margin does not provide a reasonable 
indication of the margin likely to prevail for existing manufacturers 
and exporters. Respondents suggest alternatives for determining the 
appropriate margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked, all of 
which include weight averaging margins using the 1997 exports. On this 
basis, respondents calculate margins ranging from 12.85 percent to 
23.72 percent. Finally, respondents acknowledge a preliminary 
determination of duty absorption in the eleventh administrative review.
    In its rebuttal comments CHP argues that respondents' version of 
the facts is incorrect. In fact, according to CHP, imports have 
decreased while dumping margins have increased. Under these 
circumstances, CHP argues that there is no basis in this review to use 
any margins other than those determined in the original investigation.
    In their rebuttal comments, respondents argue that the facts in 
this case require application of more recently calculated margins. 
Specifically, respondents assert that official U.S. import statistics 
demonstrate that imports of POS cooking ware from Mexico increased from 
$2,853,000 in calendar year 1985, peaking at $10,712,000 in 1994, and 
then settling to $4,442,000 in 1998. Further, respondents refer to 
company-specific proprietary data and argue that their exports have 
increased even more significantly from 1985 to 1997. In conclusion 
respondents argue that alternatives to the margins from the original 
investigation would be the simple average of company-specific margins 
calculated by the Department over the life of the order or the margins 
from the last completed administrative review.

Department's Preliminary Determination

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department will provide 
to the Commission the company-specific margins from the investigation 
because that is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of 
exporters without the discipline of an order. 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

[[Page 46655]]

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.)
    Our review of import statistics covering total imports of POS 
cooking ware from Mexico and company-specific imports demonstrates that 
import volumes and values have fluctuated over the life of the order. 
While we agree with respondents that the Department may select a more 
recently calculated margin when declining (or no) margins are 
accompanied by steady or increasing imports, we do not agree that the 
facts of this case support such a determination. Imports from both 
Cinsa and ENASA have fluctuated over the 1994 through 1997 period. This 
fluctuation occurred at a time when company-specific calculated margins 
have been increasing. Therefore, the record does not reflect declining 
margins accompanied by steady or increasing imports. Because of this, 
the Department preliminarily finds that the use of a more recently 
calculated margin in its report to the Commission would be 
inappropriate.
    Additionally, we do not agree with respondents that the all others 
margin from the original investigation is inappropriate because it 
includes the margin calculated for a company that is no longer in 
existence. We would normally determine that the margins calculated in 
the original investigation best reflect the behavior of producers/
exporters without the discipline of the order.
    In the final results of the 1996-1997 administrative review of this 
order, the Department found that antidumping duties have been absorbed 
by Cinsa on 68.03 percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise and 
by ENASA on 98.52 percent of its U.S. sales of subject merchandise (see 
Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from Mexico: Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 1, 1999). 
Consistent with the statute and the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department will notify the Commission of its findings regarding such 
duty absorption for the Commission to consider in conducting a sunset 
review.
    Additionally, the Sunset Policy Bulletin refers to the SAA at 885, 
and the House report at 60, and provides that where the Department has 
found duty absorption, the Department normally will provide to the 
Commission the higher of the margin that the Department otherwise would 
have reported to the Commission or the most recent margin for that 
company adjusted to account for the Department's findings on duty 
absorption. The Department explained that it normally will adjust a 
company's most recent margin to take into account its findings on duty 
absorption by increasing the margin by the amount of duty absorption on 
those sales for which the Department found duty absorption. In the 
administrative review covering the period December 1, 1996 through 
November 30, 1997, the Department found dumping margins of 25.42 
percent for Cinsa and 65.28 percent for ENASA. The all others rate 
remained at 29.54 percent. (See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from 
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 
26934 (May 18, 1999), as amended, Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware from 
Mexico: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 1, 1999)). Further, as noted above, the 
Department found that antidumping duties had been absorbed by both 
Cinsa and ENASA. Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, 
we are adjusting the most recent margin to account for duty absorption. 
Because the adjusted margins for Cinsa and ENASA are higher than the 
rates from the original investigation, we will report to the Commission 
the adjusted rates as indicated below.

Preliminary Results of 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 below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinsa, S.A..................................................       42.71
Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A. de C.V.................      129.40
All Others..................................................       29.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-22200 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P