[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48348-48351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23042]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-601]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip 
From Italy

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet 
and Strip from Italy.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
brass sheet and strip from Italy (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 adequate substantive 
response filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and 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 
antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the ``Final Result of 
Review'' section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun W. Cho 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-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(c) 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

    This order covers shipments of brass sheet and strip, other than 
leaded and tinned, from Italy. The chemical composition of the covered 
products is currently defined in the Copper Development Association 
(``C.D.A.'') 200 Series or the Unified Numbering System (``U.N.S.'') 
C2000. This review does not cover products with chemical compositions 
that are defined by anything other than either the C.D.A. or U.N.S. 
series. In physical dimensions, the products covered by this review 
have a solid rectangular cross section over .0006 inches (.15 
millimeters) through .1888 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished 
thickness or gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels 
(traverse wound), and cut-to-length products are included. The 
merchandise is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(``HTS'') item numbers 7409.21.00.50, 7409.21.00.75, 7409.21.00.90, 
7409.29.00.50, 7409.29.00.75, and 7409.29.0090. The HTS numbers are 
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    The antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Italy was 
published in the Federal Register on March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6997). In 
that order, the Department estimated that the weighted-average dumping 
margins for all entries of brass sheet and strip from Italy was 12.08 
percent.\1\ While amending the order, on April 8, 1987 (52 FR 11299), 
the Department lowered the weighted-average margin for La Metalli 
Industries, SpA (``LMI'') and ``all-others'' to 9.74 
percent.2 In another

[[Page 48349]]

amendment, on May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23272), the Department further 
lowered the weighted-average margin to 5.44 percent.3 Since 
that time, the Department has completed three administrative 
reviews.4 The order remains in effect for all manufacturers 
and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the original determination, the only subject of the 
investigation was La Metalli Industriale SpA (``LMI'') because, 
according to the Department, LMI represented ``virtually all 
exports'' of the subject merchandise to the United States, see Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Brass Sheet and 
Strip From Italy, 52 FR 816 (January 9, 1987).
    \2\ See Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy and Amendment to 
Antidumping Duty Order, 52 FR 11299 (April 8, 1987). This downward 
adjustment was due to ministerial errors.
    \3\ See Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Amendment of Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance 
with Decision Upon Remand: Brass Sheet and Strip from Italy, 56 FR 
23272 (May 21, 1991). This amendment reflects a decision by the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
    \4\ See, Certain Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 9325 (March 17, 
1992); and Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, November 23, 1992 (57 FR 
54969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping order on brass sheet and strip from Italy (64 FR 4840), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice 
of Intent to Participate on behalf of Heyco Metals, Inc. (``Heyco''), 
Hussey Copper Ltd. (``Hussey''), Olin Corporation-Brass Group 
(``Olin''), Outokumpu American Brass (``OAB''), PMX Industries, Inc. 
(``PMX''), Revere Copper Products, Inc. (``Revere''), the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the United Auto 
Workers (Local 2367), and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL/CIO) 
(collectively the ``domestic interested parties'') on February 16, 
1999, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the 
Sunset Regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested 
party status under sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act as U.S. 
brass mills, rerollers, and unions whose workers are engaged in the 
production of subject brass sheet and strip in the United States.
    In their Notice of Intent to Participate, while indicating that 
Heyco, Hussey, Olin, and Revere are not related to a foreign producer 
or a foreign exporter under section 771(4)(B) of the Act, the domestic 
interested parties acknowledge that OAB is related to Outokumpu Copper 
Strip BV and Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products AB (``OBV''), a Dutch and 
Swedish producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, respectively; PMX 
is related to Poongsan Corp., a Korean producer of the domestic like 
products; and Wieland is related to Wieland Werke Metallwerke AG, a 
German producer and exporter of the domestic like products. Moreover, 
American Brass, PMX, and Wieland stipulate that they have had 
experience of importing the subject merchandise and/or the domestic 
like products.
    We received a complete substantive response from the domestic 
interested parties on March 3, 1999, within the 30-day deadline 
specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). In 
their substantive response, the domestic interested parties indicate 
that most of their members were parties to the original investigation 
with a few exceptions: Heyco did not participate in the original 
investigation but fully supports the instant review, and PMX was 
established after the original petitions were filed. The domestic 
parties also note that OAB was formerly known as American Brass 
Company.
    We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent 
interested party to this proceeding. 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.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The domestic interested parties filed comments, pertaining 
to the Department's decision to conduct an expedited (120-day) 
sunset review for the present review, in which the domestic parties 
concurred with the Department's decision, see May 12, 1999 the 
domestic interested parties' comments on the Adequacy of Responses 
and the Appropriateness of Expedited Sunset Review at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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--an order which was in effect on January 
1, 1995, see section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. The Department determined 
that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and 
strip from Italy is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore, on June 7, 
1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results of this review until not later than August 30, 
1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's 
Republic of China, Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Taiwan, Top-
of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Korea (South) (AD & 
CVD), Top-of-the-Stove Stainless Steel Cooking Ware From Taiwan (AD 
& CVD), Standard Carnations From Chile (AD & CVD), Fresh Cut Flowers 
From Mexico, Fresh Cut Flowers From Ecuador, Brass Sheet and Strip 
From Brazil (AD & CVD), Brass Sheet and Strip From Korea (South), 
Brass Sheet and Strip From France (AD & CVD), Brass Sheet and Strip 
From Germany, Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy, Brass Sheet and 
Strip From Sweden, Brass Sheet and Strip From Japan, Pompon 
Chrysanthemums From Peru: 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 
antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping. Section 752(c) 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, and 
shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail 
if the order is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, domestic interested parties' comments with respect 
to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the 
margin 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 normally it 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).
    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 an order is likely to lead

[[Page 48350]]

to continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested 
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In the instant 
review, the Department did not receive a response from any respondent 
interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset 
Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
contend that revocation of the order will likely lead to continuation 
or recurrence of dumping of brass sheet and strip from Italy (see March 
3, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties at 31). 
In support of their argument, the domestic interested parties point 
out, first, that import volumes of the subject merchandise have 
declined dramatically since the issuance of the order, and that dumping 
of the subject merchandise has continued and is presently persisting 
above the de minimis level, id. 39-40. As a result, the domestic 
interested parties conclude, dumping will continue were the order 
revoked.
    Next, with respect to import volumes of the subject merchandise, 
the domestic interested parties compare a three-year (1983-1985) 
average import volume prior to the issuance of the order with a three-
year (1987-1989) average import volume subsequent to the order: 7.6 
million pounds verses 1.4 million pounds--an 81.5 percent decline. In 
addition, the domestic interested parties emphasize that since 1988, 
imports of the subject merchandise have never exceeded 810,000 pounds 
annually, id.
    In conclusion, the domestic interested parties urge that the 
Department should find dumping would be likely to continue if the order 
is revoked because dumping margins have existed significantly above the 
de minimis level over the life of the order for all producers/exporters 
of the subject merchandise, and because imports of the subject 
merchandise have declined dramatically since the imposition of the 
order. The aforementioned two circumstances, according to the domestic 
interested parties, provide a strong indication that the Italian 
producers/exporters are unable to sell in the United States without 
dumping; namely, Italian producers/exporters are likely to dump were 
the order revoked.
    As indicated in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and House Report at 63-64, the Department considered 
whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the 
issuance of the order. If companies continue dumping with the 
discipline of an order in place, the Department may reasonably infer 
that dumping would continue were the discipline removed. After 
examining the published findings with respect to weighted-average 
dumping margins in previous administrative reviews, the Department 
agrees with the domestic interested parties that weighted-average 
dumping margins at a level above de minimis have persisted over the 
life of the order and currently remain in place for all Italian 
producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See footnote 4, supra, for the list of final determinations 
of administrative reviews in which the Department found above de 
minimis weighted-average margins for Italian producers/exporters in 
all periods of investigation. Also, see domestic interest parties 
substantive response at 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the import volumes of the subject merchandise, the 
data supplied by the domestic interested parties and those of the 
United States Census Bureau IM146s and the United Stated International 
Trade Commission indicate that, since the imposition of the order, the 
import volumes of the subject merchandise have declined substantially: 
the import volume in 1987 was just over 3 million pounds, down from 
over 7 million pounds in 1986. In 1988, the import volume of the 
subject merchandise fell even further, to slightly over 800,000 pounds. 
Moreover, for the period (1994-1998), although imports of the subject 
merchandise fluctuated, the import volumes have never risen in any 
substantial amount and continue to remain relatively low. Therefore, 
the Department determines that the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise decreased significantly after the issuance of the order.
    Given that dumping has continued over the life of the order; that 
the import volumes of the subject merchandise decreased significantly 
after the issuance of the order; that respondent interested parties 
have waived their right to participate in this review; and that there 
are no arguments and/or evidence to the contrary, the Department agrees 
with the domestic interested parties' contention that Italian 
producers/exporters are incapable of selling a substantial quantity of 
the subject merchandise in the United States at fair value. 
Consequently, the Department determines that dumping is likely to 
continue if the order is revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will 
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in 
the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for 
companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not 
begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department 
normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from 
the investigation. (See section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) 
Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated 
margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption 
determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.)
    The Department, in its final determination of sales at less than 
fair value, published a weighted-average dumping margin for all entries 
of brass sheet and strip from Italy: 12.08 percent, 52 FR 816 (January 
9, 1987). This rate was amended twice: first to 9.74 percent and then 
amended once again to 5.44 percent.8 There have also been 
three administrative reviews.9 We note that, to date, the 
Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy and Amendment to 
Antidumping Duty Order, 52 FR 11299 (April 8, 1987); and Amendment 
to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Amendment to Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance with Decision Upon 
Remand: Brass Sheet and Strip From Italy, 56 FR 23272 (May 21, 
1991).
    \9\ See footnote 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While citing section II.B.2 of Sunset Policy Bulletin, which allows 
the Department to choose a more recently calculated margin if a 
particular company increases its dumping in order to maintain or 
increase market share, the domestic interested parties urge the 
Department to supply the Commission the margins from the most recent 
administrative review: 9.49 percent for both LMI and all-others.
    The Department disagrees with the domestic interested parties' 
suggestion that the Department should select a more recently calculated 
margin from the most recent administrative review. The continuous and 
rather consistent decline of the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise, since the issuance of the order, evinces that Italian 
producers/exporters have not really attempted to enhance their market 
share in the United States by increasing dumping. Furthermore, the 
fluctuations that have occurred in import volumes since the imposition 
of the order simply manifest a downward trend rather than illustrate a 
concerted attempt by Italian producers/exporters to expand market share 
by increasing dumping. Therefore, the Department sees no reason to 
deviate from its normal pattern of selecting the rate from the original

[[Page 48351]]

investigation and, consequently, determines that the rate from the 
original investigation, as amended, is the proper one to report to the 
Commission as the rate that is likely to prevail if the order is 
revoked. Therefore, the Department will report to the Commission the 
company-specific and all-others rates contained in the Final Results of 
Review section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
La Metalli Industriale SpA.................................         5.44
All Others.................................................         5.44
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-23042 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P