[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48367-48369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23045]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-351-604]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: brass sheet 
and strip from Brazil.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty 
order on brass sheet and strip from Brazil (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 
comments filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, as well as 
inadequate response (in this case, no response) from respondent 
interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited 
(120 day) review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that 
termination of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 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 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 coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse 
wound), and cut-to-length brass sheet and strip (not leaded or tinned) 
from Brazil. The subject merchandise has, regardless of width, a solid 
rectangular cross section over 0.0006 inches (0.15 millimeters) through 
0.1888 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished thickness or gauge. The 
chemical composition of the covered products is 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 C.D.A. or U.N.S. series. The merchandise is currently classified 
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') item numbers 7409.21.00 and 
7409.29.00. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and U.S. 
Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    In the original investigation, the Department received information 
on two Brazilian producers and exporters that accounted for 
substantially all exports of brass sheet and strip to the United States 
during the period of investigation. In its final affirmative 
countervailing duty determination (52 FR 1218, January 12, 1987), the 
Department concluded that the Government of Brazil was providing 
countervailable subsidies to exporters of the subject merchandise 
through four programs: (1) Preferential Working Capital Financing for 
Exports (CACEX); (2) Income Tax Exemption for Export Earnings; (3) 
Export Financing Under the CIC-CREGE 14-11 Circular; and (4) Import 
Duty Exemption Under Decree-Law 1189 of 1979.1 We estimated 
the net subsidy to be 6.13 percent ad valorem, and, on the basis of a 
program-wide change in the Preferential Working Capital Financing for 
exports program which occurred prior to the preliminary determination, 
we established a cash deposit rate of 3.47 percent ad valorem for all 
manufacturers, producers, or exporters of brass sheet and strip from 
Brazil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: 
Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil, November 10, 1986 (51 FR 40837).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has since conducted one administrative review (56 FR 
56631 (November 6, 1991)) of this countervailing duty order, covering 
the period January 1, 1990, through December 31, 1990. In the 
Department's preliminary results of the administrative review, and 
supported by the Department's final results of the administrative 
review, the Department determined that each of the four programs found 
to provide countervailable benefits in the investigation had been 
terminated. Preferential Working Capital Financing for Exports was 
terminated, effective August 30, 1990, by Central Bank Resolution 1744. 
Loans under this program were officially suspended on February 22, 
1989, until the program was terminated. The program of Income Tax 
Exemption for Export Earnings, which eliminated the tax exemption and 
established a prevailing tax rate of 30 percent for domestic and export 
earnings for 1991, was effectively terminated by Decree Law 8034, April 
12, 1990. Export Financing Under the CIC-CREGE 14-11 Circular (which 
became CIC-OPCRE 6-2-6) was deemed to be terminated as it had set 
interest rates equal to those of market rate loans as of September 20, 
1988, and there is no evidence of current or future changes. Finally, 
the Import Duty Exemption Under Decree Law 1189 was officially 
terminated by the Government of Brazil by Decree Law 7988, Article 7, 
on December 28, 1989. In its final results of review, the Department 
noted that substantial documentation, including verification reports, 
confirmed the termination without replacement of these four

[[Page 48368]]

countervailable subsidy programs.2 As a result of the 
review, the Department set the duty deposit at zero. No additional 
reviews have been conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From Brazil; Final Results of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 56631 (November 6, 
1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip from Brazil (64 
FR 4840), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On February 16, 1999, 
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 
(``Outokumpu'') (formerly American Brass Company), 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-
CLC) (hereinafter, collectively ``domestic interested parties''), 
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 (D) of the Act as domestic brass 
mills, rerollers, and unions engaged in the production of brass sheet 
and strip. With the exception of Heyco, all of the aforementioned 
parties were original petitioners in this case.
    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); we 
did not receive a substantive response from any government or 
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.
    The Department determined that the sunset review of the 
countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip from Brazil 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.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 is 
conducting this review to determine whether termination of the 
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. 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 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 to the Commission 
information concerning the nature of the subsidy and whether it 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 are discussed below. In 
addition, the domestic interested parties' comments with respect to 
these issues are addressed within the respective sections.

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 (``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 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 to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested party waives its 
participation in the sunset review. Moreover, pursuant to 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 a continuation or 
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy for all respondent interested 
parties.4 In the instant review, the Department did not 
receive a 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
assert that, consistent with the Act and SAA, and absent significant 
evidence to the contrary, continuation, temporary suspension or partial 
termination of a subsidy program will be highly probative of the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies 
(see March 3, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic interested parties 
at 33).
    In their March 12, 1999 comments, the domestic interested parties 
assert that the Department should find that revocation of the 
countervailing duty order on brass sheet and strip from Brazil will 
result in the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy 
on the basis of the failure of respondent interested parties to file a 
complete

[[Page 48369]]

substantive response to the Department's notice of initiation.
    The domestic interested parties argue that this is consistent with 
19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(4)(B) and the SAA, which provide that, where the 
government waives participation, the Department will conclude that 
revocation or termination would be likely to lead to continuation of 
countervailable subsidies (see March 12, 1999 comments of domestic 
interested parties at 3).
    In this sunset review, as argued by the domestic interested 
parties, the Department is required by section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act 
to find likelihood on the basis that the government of Brazil and the 
respondents waived their right to participate in this review. The 
participation of the government that has provided subsidies is 
necessary to determine that the producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise no longer receive subsidies and, without such 
participation, we must conclude that the producers/exporters continue 
to be subsidized. Therefore, consistent with the statute and SAA, the 
Department determines that revocation of the order is likely to result 
in continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.

Net Countervailable Subsidy

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states that, 
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will 
select a rate from the investigation 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. However, the Sunset Policy Bulletin also allows for 
adjustments to be made to the net subsidy rate likely to prevail where 
programs have either been terminated, with no residual benefits, and 
where the Department has found new countervailable programs to 
exist.5 Additionally, where the Department determined 
company-specific countervailable subsidy rates in the original 
investigation, the Sunset Policy Bulletin states that the Department 
will report to the Commission company-specific rates for those 
companies from the original investigation as well as an ``all others'' 
rate (see Sunset Policy Bulletin at section III.A.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See sections III.B.1, III.B.3.A, and III.B.3.C of the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The domestic interested parties cite the SAA statement that the 
Administration intends that Commerce normally will select the rate from 
the investigation because that is the only calculated rate that 
reflects the behavior of exporters and foreign governments without the 
discipline of an order in place (see March 3, 1999 Substantive Response 
of domestic interested parties at 45). Therefore, the domestic 
interested parties argue that the Department should determine that the 
net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail should be the country-
wide rate of 3.47 percent, the rate set forth in the original 
investigation.
    The Department disagrees with the domestic interested parties' 
position with respect to the appropriate subsidy rate to be reported to 
the Commission. As acknowledged by the domestic interested parties, in 
this case, the Department found that all of the countervailable subsidy 
programs have been terminated, without likelihood of reinstatement. 
Absent information on usage of other countervailable subsidy programs, 
the Department has no basis on which to determine the net 
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail.

Nature of the Subsidy

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states 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 the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 
Article 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. In their March 3, 1999 
substantive response, the domestic interested parties, did not address 
this issue. However, since all of the known countervailable programs 
have been terminated, there is no nature of the subsidy to report to 
the Commission.

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. However, as a result of 
termination of all known countervailable programs, the Department is 
unable to determine the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail.
    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. 99-23045 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P