[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48372-48374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23034]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Top-of-the-Stove 
Stainless Steel Cookware From Taiwan

[C-583-604]
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Top-of-the-
Stove Stainless Steel Cookware from Taiwan.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty 
order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cookware from Taiwan (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 and an 
adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested 
parties and an inadequate response (in this case, no response) from 
respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an 
expedited review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that 
revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net 
countervailable subsidy and the nature of the subsidy are identified in 
the Final Results of Review section of to this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner, 
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 or (202) 
482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1999.

Statute and Regulations:

    This review was 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

    The merchandise subject to this countervailing duty order is top-
of-the-stove stainless steel cookware (``cookware'') from Taiwan. The 
subject merchandise is all non-electric cooking ware of stainless steel 
which may have one or more layers of aluminum, copper or carbon steel 
for more even heat distribution. The subject merchandise includes 
skillets, frying pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double boilers, stock 
pots, dutch ovens, casseroles, steamers, and other stainless steel 
vessels, all for cooking on stove top burners, except tea kettles and 
fish poachers.
    Excluded from the scope of the orders are stainless steel oven ware 
and stainless steel kitchen ware. ``Universal pan lids'' are not within 
the scope of the order (57 FR 57420, December 4, 1992).
    Cookware is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(HTS) item numbers 7323.93.00 and 9604.00.00. The HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written 
description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    The countervailing duty order on cookware from Taiwan was published 
in the Federal Register on January 20, 1987 (52 FR 2141).
    In the original investigation of cookware from Taiwan, the 
Department determined the following four programs conferred 
countervailable export subsidies:
    (1) Export Loss Reserve--0.001 percent ad valorem;
    (2) 25 Percent Income Tax Ceiling for Big Trading Companies--0.010 
percent ad valorem;
    (3) Over-Rebate of Duty Drawback on Imported Materials Physically 
Incorporated in Export Merchandise--2.128 percent ad valorem; and
    (4) Rebate of Import Duties and Indirect Taxes on Imported 
Materials Not Physically Incorporated in Export Merchandise--0.002 
percent ad valorem.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain 
Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from Taiwan, 51 FR 42891(November 26, 
1986).

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

[[Page 48373]]

    The Department determined that these four programs conferred a 
bounty or grant, the net amount of which was calculated to be 2.14 
percent ad valorem for all Taiwanese exporters/producers of cookware.
    Since the original investigation, the Department has conducted no 
administrative reviews of the order. The order, therefore, remains in 
effect for all known manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise from Taiwan.

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the countervailing duty order on cookware from Taiwan (64 FR 4840), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice 
of Intent to Participate on behalf of the Stainless Steel Cookware 
Committee, whose current members are Regal Ware, Inc., All-Clad 
Metalcrafters, Inc., and Vita Craft Corp. (collectively, the 
``Committee''), on February 16, 1999, within the deadline specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Pursuant to section 
771(9)(E) of the Act, the Committee claimed interested party status as 
an association of U.S. manufacturers of a domestic like product. In 
addition, the Committee's individual members claimed domestic 
interested party status pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as 
domestic producers of a like product. The Department received a 
complete substantive response from the Committee on March 3, 1999, 
within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under 
section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a substantive response 
from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an 
expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
    The Department determined that the sunset review of the 
countervailing duty order on cookware from Taiwan 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 June 7, 
1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the 
final results of this review until not later than August 30, 1999, in 
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's 
Republic of China, et al.: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results 
of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 30305 (June 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of countervailable subsidies. Section 752(b) of the Act 
provides that, in making this determination, the Department shall 
consider the net countervailable subsidy determined in the 
investigation and subsequent reviews, and whether any change in the 
program which gave rise to the net countervailable subsidy has occurred 
that is likely to affect that net countervailable subsidy. Pursuant to 
section 752(b)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide to the 
International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the net 
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked. In 
addition, consistent with section 752(a)(6), the Department shall 
provide the Commission information concerning the nature of each 
subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 
Article 6.1 of the 1994 WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures (``Subsidies Agreement'').
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable 
subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked, and nature of the 
subsidy are discussed below. In addition, the Committee's comments with 
respect to each of these issues are addressed within the respective 
sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of a Countervailable Subsidy

    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 III.A.2 
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally 
will determine that revocation of a countervailing duty order is likely 
to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 
where (a) a subsidy program continues, (b) a subsidy program has been 
only temporarily suspended, or (c) a subsidy program has been only 
partially terminated (see section III.A.3.a of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin). Exceptions to this policy are provided where a company has a 
long record of not using a program (see section III.A.3.b of the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin).
    In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above, 
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy where a 
respondent interested party waives its participation in the sunset 
review. Moreover, according to the guidance provided by the SAA, at 
881, in a review of a countervailing duty order, when the foreign 
government has waived participation, the Department shall conclude that 
revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy for all respondent interested 
parties.\3\ In the instant review, the Department did not receive a 
substantive response from the foreign government or from any other 
respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of 
the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee asserted in its substantive response that Taiwanese 
producers/exporters of cookware continue to receive countervailable 
benefits from four programs administered by the GOT and found by the 
Department in the original investigation to confer countervailable 
subsidies. Although no administrative reviews have been conducted since 
the imposition of the original countervailing duty order, the Committee 
argued that it is not aware of any other Department determinations in 
which these programs were found not countervailable. Therefore, the 
Committee maintained that the Department should determine that 
revocation of the countervailing duty order on cookware from Taiwan 
would likely result in the continuation of a countervailable subsidy.
    We agree with the Committee that the Taiwanese programs remain in 
place. As noted above, in our final determination, the Department 
determined that the programs in question conferred subsidies, the net 
amount of which was calculated to be 2.14 percent ad valorem for 
Taiwanese exporters/producers of cookware. The Department has

[[Page 48374]]

conducted no administrative reviews of this outstanding countervailing 
duty order.
    Given that the programs found to provide countervailable subsidies 
continue to exist, the foreign government and other respondent parties 
waived their right to participate in this review before the Department, 
and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department 
determines that it is likely that a countervailable subsidy will 
continue if the order is revoked.

Net Countervailable Subsidy

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will 
select a rate from the investigation as the net countervailable subsidy 
likely to prevail if the order is revoked because that is the only 
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters and foreign 
governments without the discipline of an order or suspension agreement 
in place. The Department noted that this rate may not be the most 
appropriate rate if, for example, the rate was derived from subsidy 
programs which were found in subsequent reviews to be terminated, if 
there has been a program-wide change, or if the rate ignores a program 
found to be countervailable in a subsequent administrative review. (See 
section III.B.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Additionally, where the 
Department determined company-specific countervailing duty rates in the 
original investigation, the Department normally will report to the 
Commission company-specific rates from the original investigation; 
where no company-specific rate was determined for a company, the 
Department normally will provide to the Commission the country-wide or 
``all others'' rate. (See section III.B.2 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.)
    In their substantive response, the Committee argued that the net 
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order on cookware from 
Taiwan is revoked is the net subsidy determined in the original 
investigation. Specifically, the Committee argued that the rate likely 
to prevail if the order were revoked is 2.14 percent ad valorem. The 
Committee pointed out that, because the rate determined in the original 
investigation is the only calculated rate which reflects the behavior 
of exporters without the discipline of the order in place, the 
Department's policy provides that it normally will select this rate to 
provide to the Commission.
    As discussed in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department normally 
will report to the Commission an original subsidy rate, as adjusted, to 
take into account terminated programs, program-wide changes, and 
programs found to be countervailable in subsequent reviews. We agree 
with the Committee that the programs found to provide countervailable 
subsidies continue to exist. Absent evidence or argument that there 
have been any changes to the programs found to be countervailable in 
the original investigation that would affect the net countervailable 
subsidy, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department 
determines that the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if 
the order were revoked is 2.14 percent.

Nature of the Subsidy

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
consistent with section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the Department will 
provide information to the Commission concerning the nature of the 
subsidy and whether it is a subsidy described in Article 3 or Article 
6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. The Committee did not specifically 
address this issue in their substantive response.
    Because, in the original investigation, we found receipt of 
benefits under each of the four programs to be contingent upon exports, 
these programs fall within the definition of an export subsidy under 
Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net countervailable 
subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked is 2.14 percent ad 
valorem.
    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23034 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P