[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48354-48357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23038]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Color Picture Tubes 
From Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore

A-122-605, A-588-609, A-580-605, A-559-601]
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Color 
Picture Tubes from Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore

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

SUMMARY: On March 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on color picture tubes (``CPTs'') from Canada, Japan, the Republic of 
Korea, and Singapore (64 FR 9970) pursuant to section 751(c) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of notices 
of intent to participate and adequate substantive comments filed on 
behalf of the domestic interested parties and inadequate response (in 
these cases, no response) from respondent interested parties, the 
Department determined to conduct expedited reviews. As a result of 
these reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping 
orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping 
at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of 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 and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    These reviews were 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 these antidumping duty orders is color 
picture tubes from Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea (``Korea''), 
and Singapore. The subject merchandise is defined as cathode ray tubes 
suitable for use in the manufacture of color television receivers or 
other color entertainment display devices intended for television 
viewing. Where a CPT is shipped and imported together with all parts 
necessary for assembly into a complete television receiver (i.e., as a 
``kit''), the CPT is excluded from the scope of these orders. In other 
words, a kit and a fully assembled television are a separate class or 
kind of merchandise from the CPT. Accordingly, the Department 
determined that, when CPTs are shipped together with other parts as 
television receiver kits, they are excluded from the scope of the 
order. With respect to CPTs which are imported for customs purposes as 
incomplete televison assemblies, we determined that these entries are 
included within the scope of these investigations unless both of the 
following criteria are met: (1) the CPT is ``physically integrated'' 
with other television receiver components in such a manner as to 
constitute one inseparable amalgam and (2) the CPT does not constitute 
a significant portion of the cost or value of the items being 
imported.1 Such merchandise was classifiable under 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers 8540.11.00.10, 
8540.11.00.20, 8540.11.00.30, 8540.11.00.40, 8540.11.00.50 and 
8540.11.00.60. However, due to changes in the HTS, the subject 
merchandise is currently classifiable under HTS items 8540.11.10, 
8540.11.24, 8540.11.28, 8540.11.30, 8540.11.44, 8540.11.48, and 
8540.11.50. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment to Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Color Picture Tubes 
From Japan, 53 FR 430 (January 7, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These reviews cover imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
CPTs from Canada, Japan, Korea, and Singapore.

History of the Orders

Canada

    The Department published its final affirmative determination of 
sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') with respect to imports of 
CPTs from Canada on November 18, 1987 (52 FR 44161). In this 
determination, the Department published a weighted-average dumping 
margin for one company as well as an ``all others'' rate. These margins 
were subsequently amended when the Department issued its antidumping 
duty order on CPTs from Canada on January 7, 1998 (53 FR 
429).2 The Department has conducted no administrative 
reviews of this order since its imposition. The order remains in effect 
for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise from 
Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japan

    On November 18, 1987, the Department issued its affirmative final 
determination of sales at LTFV regarding CPTs from Japan (52 FR 44171). 
In this determination, the Department published weighted-average 
dumping margins for four companies and an ``all others'' rate. Two of 
the company-specific margins as well as the ``all others'' margin were 
later amended when the antidumping order on CPTs from Japan was 
published in the Federal Register on January 7, 1988 (53 FR 430). Since 
the order was issued, the Department has conducted two administrative 
reviews with respect to CPTs from Japan.3 In both the first 
and second administrative reviews, the Department calculated one 
company-specific margin and an ``all others'' rate. The order remains 
in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise from Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Color Picture Tubes from Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 37915 (September 14, 
1990), and Color Picture Tubes from Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 34201 (June 25, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Korea

    The Department published its affirmative final determination of 
sales

[[Page 48355]]

at LTFV with regard to CPTs from Korea on November 18, 1987 (52 FR 
44186). In this determination, the Department published weighted-
average dumping margin for one company as well as an ``all other'' 
rate. The antidumping duty order was issued on January 7, 1988 (53 FR 
431). The Department has since conducted one administrative review of 
the order with respect to CPTs from Korea.4 In this review, 
the Department calculated two company-specific margins, one of which 
was later amended, as well as an ``all others'' rate. The order remains 
in effect for all Korean manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Color Picture Tubes from South Korea; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 19084 (April 25, 
1991), as amended by Color Picture Tubes from South Korea; Amended 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 29215 
(June 26, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Singapore

    On November 18, 1987, the Department issued its final affirmative 
determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports of CPTs from 
Singapore (52 FR 44190). In this determination, the Department 
published a weighted-average dumping margin for one company as well as 
an ``all others'' rate. Since the imposition of the order, no 
administrative reviews of the antidumping order on CPTs Singapore have 
been conducted. The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise from Singapore.
    On March 7, 1991, the Department published a negative final 
determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty orders on CPTs 
from Canada, Japan, Korea, and Singapore (56 FR 9667).

Background

    On March 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on CPTs from Canada, Japan, Korea, and 
Singapore (64 FR 9970), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The 
Department received Notices of Intent to Participate, in each of the 
four sunset reviews, on behalf of Philips Display Components Company, 
Thomson Americas Tube Operations, the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers and the International Union of Electronic, 
Electrical, Salaried, Machine & Furniture Workers (AFL-CIO/CLC) 
(collectively, ``domestic interested parties''), on March 16, 1999, 
within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. Pursuant to sections 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, the 
domestic interested parties claimed interested party status as U.S. 
manufacturers and unions whose workers are engaged in the production of 
domestic like products. Moreover, the domestic interested parties 
stated that both the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 
and the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, 
Machine & Furniture Workers (AFL-CIO/CLC) were petitioners in the 
original investigation. The Department received complete substantive 
responses from the domestic interested parties on March 31, 1999, 
within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under 
section 351.218(d)(3)(i). On March 22, 1999, the Department received an 
untimely notice of intent to participate on behalf of Sharp Electronics 
Corporation in the case involving CPTs from Japan. We did not receive a 
substantive response from any respondent interested party to these 
proceedings. On March 30, 1999, the Department received a waiver of 
participation on behalf of the Electronic Industries Association of 
Korea. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the 
Department determined to conduct expedited, 120-day reviews of these 
orders.
    The Department determined that the sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on CPTs from Canada, Japan, Korea, and 
Singapore are 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 July 6, 1999, the Department 
extended the time limit for completion of the final results of these 
reviews until not later than August 30, 1999, in accordance with 
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Solid Urea From Armenia, Solid Urea From Belarus, Solid 
Urea From Estonia, Solid Urea From Lithuania, Solid Urea From 
Romania, Solid Urea From Russia, Solid Urea From Tajikistan, Solid 
Urea From Turkmenistan, Solid Urea From Ukraine, Solid Urea From 
Uzbekistan, Color Picture Tubes From Canada, Color Picture Tubes 
From Japan, Color Picture Tubes From Korea (South), Color Picture 
Tubes From Singapore: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of 
Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 36333 (July 6, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making these determinations, 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, and shall provide to the International Trade 
Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margins of dumping 
likely to prevail if the orders were revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are discussed 
below. In addition, the domestic interested parties' comments with 
respect to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of 
the margins are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

    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 bases for 
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on 
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2). In addition, the Department 
indicated that it normally will determine that revocation of an 
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).
    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 dumping where a respondent interested 
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In these instant 
reviews, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any 
respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of 
the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of

[[Page 48356]]

participation. Further, we received a waiver of participation from the 
Electronic Industries Association of Korea.
    In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties 
argue that the substantial decline in the volume of imports of CPTs 
from the subject countries following the issuance of the orders 
demonstrates the inability of the producers from subject countries to 
sell in the U.S. market in any significant volume without dumping. The 
domestic interested parties argue further that revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or 
recurrence of dumping by Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and Singaporean 
producers/manufacturers. They support this argument with evidence in 
the form of tables showing that, since imposition of the orders, 
respondents have generally reduced their sales to the United States 
(see March 31, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested 
Parties at Attachment 2). Therefore, they assert, were the antidumping 
orders revoked, it is likely that Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and 
Singaporean producers would need to dump in order to sell their subject 
color pictures tubes in any significant quantities in the United States 
(see id. at 17).

Canada

    With respect to subject merchandise from Canada, the domestic 
interested parties maintain that in the year the order was imposed, 
1988, imports from Canada fell from approximately 219,000 units the 
year before to just over 80,000 units (see id. at 19 and Attachment 2). 
They also argue that, in the three years following the imposition of 
the order (1988-1990), average import volumes of the subject 
merchandise were almost 80 percent lower than in the three years 
preceding the final determination of sales at LTFV (1984-1986) (see id. 
at 18-19).
    Moreover, the domestic interested parties point out that dumping 
margins above de minimis remain in place for one Canadian company.

Japan

    According to the domestic interested parties, the imposition of the 
antidumping duty order had a dramatic effect on subject import volumes 
from Japan. They indicate that in the years following the imposition of 
the order, imports of the subject merchandise from Japan declined by 
almost 70 percent. Moreover, they assert, import volumes of the subject 
CPTs from Japan have remained low relative to the pre-order levels. The 
domestic interested parties also argue that dumping margins remain in 
place for at least one Japanese producer of the subject merchandise. In 
sum, the domestic interested parties maintain, the dramatic decline in 
import volumes following the imposition of the order, in conjunction 
with the fact that only one Japanese respondent has ever requested an 
administrative review of the original dumping margins, provides clear 
evidence that the Japanese producers are incapable of selling at fair 
value in the U.S. market and that revocation of the current order would 
result in continued dumping and massive increases in Japanese import 
volumes (see id. at 20).

Korea

    With respect to imports of the subject merchandise from Korea, the 
domestic interested parties assert that imports declined significantly 
after the imposition of the order. In fact, the domestic interested 
parties argue, post-order imports from Korea averaged just 2.9 percent 
of their pre-order levels (see id. at 21). Furthermore, the domestic 
interested parties argue, since 1988, imports of CPTs from Korea have 
been virtually non-existent and annual volumes have never risen to even 
five percent of their pre-order levels. Therefore, the domestic 
interested parties assert, the minimal volumes of imports of CPTs in 
the period since the order was imposed indicate that the Koreans are 
incapable of selling the subject merchandise in the United States at 
fair value (see id. at 21).

Singapore

    The domestic interested parties state that imports of the subject 
CPTs from Singapore also declined significantly following the 
imposition of the order. In fact, the domestic interested parties 
argue, while U.S. imports from Singapore averaged approximately 139,000 
units annually in the three years prior to the imposition of the order 
(1984-1986), in the three years following the imposition of the order 
(1988-1990) such imports averaged just 810 units annually (see id. at 
21 and Attachment 2).
    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 to 
dump with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may 
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were 
removed. As discussed above, dumping margins above de minimis continue 
to exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from Canada, Japan, 
Korea, and Singapore.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considers the volume of imports before and after issuance of the order. 
As outlined in each respective section above, the domestic interested 
parties argue that a significant decline in the volume of imports of 
the subject merchandise from Canada, Japan, Korea, and Singapore since 
the imposition of the orders provides further evidence that dumping 
would continue if the orders were revoked. In their substantive 
responses, the domestic interested parties provided statistics 
demonstrating the decline in import volumes of CPTs from Canada, Japan, 
Korea, and Singapore (see March 31, 1999, Substantive Response of the 
Domestic Interested Parties at Attachment 2). Using the Department's 
statistics, including IM146 reports, on imports of the subject 
merchandise from these countries, we agree with the domestic interested 
parties' assertions that imports of the subject merchandise fell 
sharply after the orders were imposed and, in most cases, never 
regained pre-order volumes.
    As noted above, in conducting its sunset reviews, the Department 
considers the weighted-average dumping margins and volume of imports 
when determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order would 
lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Based on this 
analysis, the Department finds that the existence of dumping margins 
above de minimis levels and a reduction in export volumes after the 
issuance of the orders is highly probative of the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate above a de 
minimis level continues in effect for exports of the subject 
merchandise by all known Canadian, Japanese, Korean, and Singaporean 
manufacturers/exporters. Therefore, given that dumping has continued 
over the life of the orders, import volumes declined significantly 
after the imposition of the orders, respondent parties waived 
participation, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the 
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the orders 
were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it 
normally will 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

[[Page 48357]]

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.) We note that, to 
date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in any 
of these four cases.
    In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties 
recommended that, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department provide to the Commission the company-specific margins from 
the original investigations. Moreover, regarding companies not reviewed 
in the original investigation, the domestic interested parties 
suggested that the Department report the ``all others'' rates included 
in the original investigations.
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties. The 
Department finds that the margins calculated in the original 
investigation are probative of the behavior of Canadian, Japanese, 
Korean, and Singaporean producers/exporters if the orders were revoked 
as they are the only margins which reflect their behavior absent the 
discipline of the order. Therefore, the Department will report to the 
Commission the company-specific and all others rates from the original 
investigations as contained in the Final Results of Review section of 
this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation 
of the antidumping orders would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Electronics Industries Canada, Inc..............         0.63
All Others.................................................         0.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi, Ltd...............................................        22.29
Matsushita Electronics Corporation.........................        27.46
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation............................         1.05
Toshiba Corporation........................................        33.50
All Others.................................................        27.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Korea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung Electron Devices Company, Ltd......................         1.91
All Others.................................................         1.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitachi Electronic Devices, Pte., Ltd......................         5.33
All Others.................................................         5.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    These five-year (``sunset'') reviews and notices 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. 99-23038 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P