[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 166 (Friday, August 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46881-46884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22354]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-857, A-560-809]


Initiation of Antidumping Investigations: Paintbrushes and 
Paintbrush Heads, Other Than Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and 
Paintbrush Heads, From the People's Republic of China and Paintbrushes 
and Paintbrush Heads From Indonesia

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 27, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sunkyu Kim, AD/CVD Enforcement Group 
I, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2613.

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the 
Department's) regulations are to the current regulations at 19 CFR part 
351 (April 1998).

The Petitions

    On August 2, 1999, the Department received petitions filed in 
proper form by The Paintbrush Trade Action Coalition (PATAC) which is 
comprised of the following companies: EZ Paintr Corporation; The 
Wooster Brush Company; Purdy Corporation; Bestt Liebco; and Tru*Serv 
Manufacturing, collectively referred to hereinafter as the petitioner. 
On August 11 and August 16, 1999, the Department received supplemental 
information to these petitions that it had requested from the 
petitioner.
    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Act, the petitioner 
alleges that imports of paintbrushes, other than natural bristle 
paintbrushes, from the People's Republic of China (PRC), and 
paintbrushes from Indonesia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 
United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 
of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring an industry 
in the United States.
    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the petitions on 
behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as 
defined in sections 771(9) (C) and (D) of the Act and it has 
demonstrated sufficient industry support. See ``Determination of 
Industry Support for the Petitions'' section, below.

Scope of Investigations

    There is an existing antidumping duty order on natural bristle 
paintbrushes from the PRC. See Antidumping Duty Order; Natural Bristle 
Paintbrushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China, 51 FR 
5580 (February 14, 1986). The scope of the petition on

[[Page 46882]]

paintbrushes from the PRC covers all paintbrushes and paintbrush heads 
imported from the PRC, except those that are already covered by the 
existing order. For Indonesia, the scope of the petition includes all 
paintbrushes and paintbrush heads (i.e., natural bristle, synthetic 
filament, and natural-synthetic filament blended paintbrushes).

People's Republic of China

    The scope of the PRC investigation includes all paintbrushes and 
paintbrush heads that are used to apply paint, stain, varnish, shellac, 
or any other type of protective coating, other than natural bristle 
paintbrushes and paintbrush heads that are classifiable under 
9603.40.4040 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). The scope of the investigation includes paintbrushes and 
paintbrush heads with a blend of natural bristle and synthetic 
filaments, provided that the synthetic filaments comprise over 50 
percent of the total filler material in the finished paintbrush or 
paintbrush head.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under 
9603.40.4060 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided 
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are artists' brushes 
classifiable under 9603.30.2000, 9603.30.4000, or 9603.30.6000 of the 
HTSUS or other non-paintbrush products classifiable under 9603.40.4060 
of the HTSUS, such as foam applicators, sponge applicators, or any 
other type of non-brush paint applicator.

Indonesia

    The scope of the Indonesian investigation includes all paintbrushes 
and paintbrush heads that are used to apply paint, stain, varnish, 
shellac, or any other type of protective coating, including natural 
bristle paintbrushes and paintbrush heads, synthetic filament 
paintbrushes and paintbrush heads, and paintbrushes and paintbrush 
heads made with a blend of natural bristle and synthetic filament.
    The merchandise subject to this investigation is classifiable under 
9603.40.4040 and 9603.40.4060 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the 
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
    Excluded from the scope of this investigation are artists' brushes 
classifiable under 9603.30.2000, 9603.30.4000, or 9603.30.6000 of the 
HTSUS or other non-paintbrush products classifiable under 9603.40.4060 
of the HTSUS, such as foam applicators, sponge applicators, or any 
other type of non-brush paint applicator.
    During our review of the petitions, we discussed the definitions of 
the scope of the investigations with the petitioner to ensure that the 
definitions accurately reflect the products for which it is seeking 
relief. As we discussed in the preamble to the Department's 
regulations, we are setting aside a period for parties to raise issues 
regarding product coverage. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 
Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997). The Department 
encourages all parties to submit such comments by September 13, 1999. 
Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records 
Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania Avenue and 
14th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20230. This scope consultation period 
is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to 
consider all comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of 
the preliminary determinations.

Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on 
behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act 
provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic 
producers or workers who support the petition account for: (1) At least 
25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and 
(2) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product 
produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or 
opposition to, the petition.
    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the ``industry'' as the 
producers of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether the 
petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the 
Department to look to producers and workers who account for production 
of the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), 
which is responsible for determining whether the domestic industry has 
been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like 
product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and 
the ITC must apply the same statutory provision regarding the domestic 
like product (section 771(10) of the Act), they do so for different 
purposes and pursuant to separate and distinct authority. In addition, 
the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and 
information. Although this may result in different definitions of the 
domestic like product, such differences do not render the decision of 
either agency contrary to the law.1 Section 771(10) of the 
Act defines domestic like product as ``a product which is like, or in 
the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the 
article subject to an investigation under this title.'' Thus, the 
reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is 
``the article subject to an investigation,'' i.e., the class or kind of 
merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as 
defined in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 
639, 644 (CIT 1988); High Information Content Flat Panel Displays 
and Display Glass Therefor from Japan: Final Determination; 
Rescission of Investigation and Partial Dismissal of Petition, 56 
Fed. Reg. 32376, 32380-81 (July 16, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, the petitioner claims that all paintbrushes including 
natural bristle, synthetic filament, and natural-synthetic filament 
blended paintbrushes, constitute one class or kind of merchandise. In 
addition, the petitioner notes that the ITC, in its determination in 
the original investigation on natural bristle paintbrushes from the 
PRC, defined the domestic like product as all paintbrushes, both 
natural bristle and synthetic filament paintbrushes. See Natural 
Bristle Paint Brushes from the People's Republic of China, Inv. No. 
731-TA-244 (Final), USITC Pub.1805 at 7 (January 1986).
    Based on our analysis of the information and arguments presented to 
the Department, we have determined that for purposes of initiation of 
these investigations there is a single domestic like product which is 
defined in the ``Scope of Investigations'' section, above, with respect 
to Indonesia.
    Moreover, the Department has determined that the petitions and 
supplemental information contained adequate evidence of sufficient 
industry support. See August 23, 1999, Initiation Checklist (public 
version on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of 
Commerce, Room B-099). To the best of the Department's knowledge, the 
producers who support the petitions account for more than 50 percent of 
the production of the domestic like product. Additionally, no person 
who would qualify as an interested party pursuant to section 771(9) 
(C), (D), (E) or (F) of the

[[Page 46883]]

Act expressed opposition to the petitions on the record. Accordingly, 
the Department determines that these petitions are filed on behalf of 
the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the 
Act.

Export Price and Normal Value

    The following describes the allegations of sales at less than fair 
value upon which our decision to initiate these investigations is 
based. Should the need arise to use any of this information in our 
preliminary or final determinations for purposes of facts available 
under section 776 of the Act, we may re-examine the information and 
revise the margin calculations, if appropriate.

People's Republic of China

    The petitioner identified 42 potential PRC exporters and/or 
producers of paintbrushes. The petitioner based export price (EP) on 
offers for sale of the subject merchandise by three PRC exporters. The 
petitioner made no adjustments to the starting prices.
    Because the PRC is considered a nonmarket economy (NME) country 
under section 771(18) of the Act, the petitioner based normal value 
(NV) on the factors of production valued in a surrogate country, in 
accordance with section 773(c)(3) of the Act. For purposes of the 
petition, the petitioner selected Indonesia as the most appropriate 
surrogate market economy. For the factors of production, the petitioner 
analyzed sample paintbrushes provided by the PRC exporters that 
correspond to the price quotations. The petitioner disassembled and 
weighed each of the inputs in order to derive the consumption amount of 
each raw material used. For labor and electricity, the petitioner 
estimated the consumption amounts based on its own experience.
    Materials were valued based on Indonesian prices obtained from the 
petitioner's market research. For wood handles, the petitioner stated 
that it was unable to obtain any publicly available information 
specific to wood handles for paintbrushes. Therefore, wood handles were 
valued using prices obtained from an Indonesian supplier. The remaining 
materials, including packing materials, were valued based on publicly 
available information which consisted principally of prices published 
in official Indonesian government import statistics (i.e., Foreign 
Trade Statistical Bulletin: Imports) for the period January 1997 
through October 1997. Labor, including direct and packing labor, was 
valued using the regression-based wage rate for the PRC provided by the 
Department, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). To value 
electricity, the petitioner used the value used by the Department in 
the 1996-1997 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the PRC. This value 
is based on rates published in A Brief Guide for Investors 1995, issued 
by the Indonesian government's Investment Coordinating Board. The 
petitioner adjusted the rate for inflation using the wholesale price 
indices (WPI) published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). For 
factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) 
and profit, the petitioner used information from financial statements 
pertaining to the Indonesian industrial grouping which includes 
manufacturers of paintbrushes, as reported in the Indonesian 
government's Large and Medium Manufacturing Statistics: Volume I 
(1997).
    Based on comparisons of EP to NV, the petitioner estimates dumping 
margins from 10.82 percent to 148.91 percent.

Indonesia

    The petitioner identified the following four exporters and 
producers of paintbrushes from Indonesia: PT Ace Oldfields; PT Eterna 
Jayatama Industries; PT Kata Perkasa J/V; and PT Sentosa Hastareksa. 
For EP, the petitioner used price quotes offered by one of the 
producers, PT Ace Oldfields, as obtained from its foreign market 
research.
    The petitioner adjusted these prices by subtracting amounts for 
foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling expenses. The 
movement expenses were based on information obtained from the 
petitioner's market research report.
    With respect to NV, the petitioner used price quotations obtained 
from the foreign market researcher for paintbrushes manufactured by Ace 
Oldfields and sold to customers in Indonesia. The petitioner adjusted 
these prices by subtracting foreign inland freight amounts which were 
calculated by using information obtained by the market researcher. In 
addition, the petitioner made a circumstance of sale adjustment for 
imputed credit expenses by subtracting home market credit expenses from 
the starting prices. The petitioner calculated home market imputed 
credit expenses based on an estimated credit period and the average 
short-term lending rate in Indonesia during the first quarter of 1999, 
as published in the International Financial Statistics.
    Based on comparisons of EP to home market prices, the petitioner 
estimates margins of 0.00 to 53.12 percent.

Allegation of Sales Below Cost

    Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, the petitioner alleged that 
home market sales of the foreign like product in Indonesia were made at 
prices below the cost of production (COP) and requested that the 
Department initiate a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation.
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consists of cost of 
manufacturing (COM), SG&A and packing costs. The petitioner calculated 
the COP for a sample paintbrush manufactured in Indonesia by PT Ace 
Oldfields in the following manner: (1) the petitioner calculated the 
cost of materials by weighing the various material inputs, including 
packing materials, and valuing the cost of each material using publicly 
available data; (2) for labor and electricity, the petitioner estimated 
the consumption amounts based on its analysis of the product and the 
production experience of its members; and (3) for factory overhead and 
SG&A, the petitioner used information from publicly available 1997 
financial statements pertaining to the Indonesian industrial grouping 
which includes manufacturers of paintbrushes.
    With the exception of the values for labor and natural bristle, the 
petitioner relied on the information used to value the factors of 
production of paintbrushes from the PRC, as described above, to 
calculate the COP of the analyzed paintbrush. To value labor, the 
petitioner used the April 1999 regional minimum wage rate applicable in 
West Java, Indonesia, as obtained from the February 1999 issue of the 
Indonesian Commercial Newsletter. The petitioner calculated the cost of 
natural bristles based on values obtained from the October 1997 issue 
of the Foreign Trade Statistical Bulletin: Imports for the period 
January 1997 through October 1997.
    Based upon the comparison of the adjusted prices from the petition 
of the foreign like product in Indonesia to the COP calculated in the 
petition, we do not find ``reasonable grounds to believe or suspect'' 
that sales of these foreign like products were made below their 
respective COP within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Accordingly, based on information currently on the record, the 
Department is not initiating a country-wide cost investigation for 
Indonesia, as requested by the petitioner.

[[Page 46884]]

Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to 
believe that imports of paintbrushes and paintbrush heads, other than 
natural bristle paintbrushes and paintbrush heads, from the PRC and 
paintbrushes and paintbrush heads from Indonesia are being, or are 
likely to be, sold at less than fair value.

Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the 
domestic like product is being materially injured, and is threatened 
with material injury, by reason of imports of the subject merchandise 
sold at less than NV. The allegations of injury and causation are 
supported by relevant evidence including business proprietary data from 
the members of PATAC and U.S. Customs import data. The Department 
assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material 
injury and causation and determined that these allegations are 
sufficiently supported by accurate and adequate evidence and meet the 
statutory requirements for initiation. See Initiation Checklist (public 
version on file in the Central Records Unit of the Department of 
Commerce, Room B-099).

Initiation of Antidumping Investigations

    We have examined the petitions on paintbrushes and paintbrush 
heads, other than natural bristle paintbrushes and paintbrush heads, 
from the PRC and paintbrushes and paintbrush heads from Indonesia and 
have found that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. 
Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to 
determine whether imports of paintbrushes and paintbrush heads, other 
than natural bristle paintbrushes and paintbrush heads, from the PRC 
and paintbrushes and paintbrush heads from Indonesia are being, or are 
likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless 
extended, we will make our preliminary determinations for the 
antidumping duty investigations by January 10, 2000.

Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a copy of the 
public version of each petition has been provided to the 
representatives of the governments of the PRC and Indonesia. We will 
attempt to provide a copy of the public version of each petition to 
each exporter named in the petition (as appropriate).

International Trade Commission Notification

    We have notified the ITC of our initiations, as required by section 
732(d) of the Act.

Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will determine by September 16, 1999, whether there is a 
reasonable indication that imports of paintbrushes and paintbrush 
heads, other than natural bristle paintbrushes and paintbrush heads, 
from the PRC and paintbrushes and paintbrush heads from Indonesia are 
causing material injury, or threatening to cause material injury, to a 
U.S. industry. Negative ITC determinations will result in the 
particular investigations being terminated; otherwise, the 
investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time 
limits.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of 
the Act.

    Dated: August 23, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-22354 Filed 8-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P