[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48351-48354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23046]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-603; A-427-602; A-580-603]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Brass Sheet and Strip 
From Brazil, France and Korea

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: brass 
sheet and strip from Brazil, France and Korea.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on brass sheet and strip from Brazil, France and Korea (64 FR 4840) 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''). On the basis of the notices of intent to participate and 
adequate substantive responses filed on behalf of domestic interested 
parties and inadequate responses (in these cases, no responses) 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 duty 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: Kathryn B. McCormick 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-
5050 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

    These orders cover shipments of coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse 
wound), and cut-to-length brass sheet and strip (not leaded or tinned) 
from Brazil, France and Korea. 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; these reviews do 
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 customs purposes. The written description remains 
dispositive.
    These reviews cover all producers and exporters of brass sheet and 
strip from Brazil, France and Korea.

History of the Orders

    In the original investigations, covering the period October 1, 
1985, through March 31, 1986, the Department determined the average 
margin for Eluma Corporation, the Brazilian company investigated, to be 
40.62 percent ad valorem (52 FR 1214; January 12, 1987). On March 6, 
1987, the Department determined the weighted-average margin for 
Trefimetaux S.A., the French company investigated, to be 42.24 percent 
ad valorem (52 FR 6995). There was one scope ruling (59 FR 54888; 
November 2, 1994) in which the Department determined that brass circles 
from Brazil that were imported for use in the production of vent valves 
for air ventilation in boiler systems were outside the scope of the 
order (id.). There have been no administrative reviews of the Brazilian 
and French orders.
    On January 12, 1987, the Department determined the weighted-average 
margin for Poongsan Metal Corporation (``Poongsan''), the Korean 
company investigated, to be 7.17 percent ad valorem (52 FR 1215). In 
the only administrative review of this order, covering the period 
August 22, 1986, through December 31, 1987,1 the Department 
determined that a margin of 7.34 percent exists for Poongsan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Brass Sheet and Strip from the Republic of Korea; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 33257 
(August 14, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The orders cited above remain in effect for all Brazilian, French 
and Korean producers and exporters, respectively, of the subject 
merchandise.

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on brass sheet and strip from Brazil, France 
and Korea (64 FR 4840), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The 
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate in each of these 
reviews on behalf of Heyco Metals, Inc. (``Heyco''), Hussey Copper Ltd. 
(``Hussey''), Olin Corporation-Brass Group (``Olin''), Outokumpu 
American Brass (``Outokumpu''), PMX Industries,

[[Page 48352]]

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'') on February 16, 1999, within the deadline specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.2 In 
their substantive responses, 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. Further, with the exception of Heyco and PMX, 
all of the aforementioned parties were the original petitioners in 
these cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PMX Industries, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of 
Poongsan Metal Corporation, the respondent covered by the Korean 
antidumping order. PMX indicated that it does not support the 
continuation of the antidumping duty order against Korea. See 
Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties, March 3, 
1999, at 3 (footnote 2) and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received complete substantive responses from domestic interested 
parties for each of these reviews 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 in these proceedings. 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 brass sheet and strip from Brazil, France 
and Korea are extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with 
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 these 
reviews 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 
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping 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 investigations 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 duty orders, and it 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, the 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 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 an order is 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 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 responses, the domestic interested parties 
argue that revocation of the orders will likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping of brass sheet and strip from Brazil, France and 
Korea (see March 3, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic interested 
parties for Brazil, France and Korea at 34, 37-38 and 41-42, 
respectively). With respect to whether dumping of subject merchandise 
continued at any level above de minimis, the domestic interested 
parties do not comment. However, they note that the Department has not 
conducted any administrative reviews of the orders covering subject 
merchandise from Brazil and France.
    With respect to whether imports of subject merchandise ceased after 
the issuance of the orders, the domestic interested parties assert 
that, although imports of Brazilian and French brass sheet and strip 
dropped significantly, they have not been eliminated since the 
imposition of dumping duties under their orders in 1988 and 1987, 
respectively, and continue to remain at a very low levels (see March 3, 
1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties for Brazil, 
France and Korea at 34, 37-38 and 41-42, respectively). Korean imports 
have been almost non-existent since the 1986 order, and annual volumes 
have never risen to a level even close to one percent of their pre-
petition average (id.).
    With respect to whether dumping was eliminated after the issuance 
of the orders and import volumes declined significantly, the domestic 
interested parties, citing Commerce IM146 reports, assert that, for 
each of these countries, the imposition of the order was followed by a 
significant decrease in the average volume of imports. In the three 
years following the petitioners' filings, the volume of Brazilian 
imports was 97 percent lower than that of the pre-petition period (see 
March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 
34); for France, the

[[Page 48353]]

volume fell by 99.4 percent (id. at 37-38); and Korean post-order 
imports decreased by 83 percent of their pre-petition levels (id. at 
41-42).
    In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argue that the 
Department should determine that there is a likelihood of continuation 
or recurrence of dumping in each of these cases if the orders were 
revoked because dumping margins have existed over the lives of the 
orders and continue to exist at above de minimis levels for all 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise, and because imports 
of the subject merchandise have declined dramatically since the 
imposition of the orders,
    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 
dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may 
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were 
removed. Dumping margins presently remain in place for producers and 
exporters in each of these cases and, therefore, dumping margins above 
de minimis levels continue to exist for shipments of the subject 
merchandise from all Brazilian, French and Korean producers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the import volumes before and after issuance of the orders. 
The import statistics provided by the domestic industry in each of 
these cases demonstrate that import volumes of the subject merchandise 
declined dramatically immediately following the imposition of the 
orders and continue to remain at very low levels.
    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of these orders is highly probative 
of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit 
rates above a de minimis level continue in effect for exports of the 
subject merchandise for all producers and exporters. Therefore, given 
that dumping has continued over the life of the orders, imports 
declined significantly, respondent interested parties have waived their 
right to participate in these reviews before the Department, and absent 
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that 
dumping is likely to continue if these orders were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states 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).
    In its November 10, 1986, final determination of sales at less than 
fair value, the Department published a weighted-average dumping margin 
for one Brazilian producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Eluma 
Corporation, of 40.62 percent (51 FR 40831). The Department also 
published an ``all others'' rate of 40.62 percent. Similarly, the 
Department published a dumping margin for one French producer/exporter 
of the subject merchandise, Trefimetaux S.A., of 42.24 percent (52 FR 
812, January 9, 1987), and an ``all others'' rate, also 42.24 percent. 
In its final determination of sales at less than fair value, the 
Department published a weighted-average dumping margin for one Korean 
producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Poongsan Metal 
Corporation, of 7.17 percent (51 FR 40833, November 10, 1986), and an 
``all others'' rate, also 7.17 percent. In the only administrative 
review of this case, the margin was revised upward to 7.34 percent for 
Poongsan (54 FR 33257, August 14, 1989). To date, the Department has 
not issued any duty-absorption findings in these cases.
    With respect to the orders on Brazil and France, the domestic 
interested parties argue that the Department, consistent with the SAA 
and the Sunset Policy Bulletin should provide to the Commission the 
weighted-average margin from the original investigations as the 
magnitude of dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked 
(see March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties 
at 46). Moreover, the domestic interested parties, citing the SAA at 
890 and the Sunset Policy Bulletin, note that the Department normally 
will provide the Commission with the dumping margins ``from the 
investigation, because that is the only calculated rate that reflects 
the behavior of exporters * * * without the discipline of the order * * 
* in place.''
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties' 
arguments concerning the choice of the margin rates to report to the 
Commission. Since there have been no administrative reviews of the 
orders on Brazil and France and considering that dumping has continued 
over the life of the orders, the rates from the original investigations 
are the only ones available to the Department.
    With respect to Korean exporters and producers, the Department 
disagrees with the domestic interested parties' argument that, since 
Poongsan has continued to dump at the slightly higher margin of 7.34 
percent, the more recent margin is the appropriate rate to present to 
the Commission. The Sunset Policy Bulletin states that a company may 
choose to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase market 
share. As a result, increasing margins may be more representative of a 
company's behavior in the absence of an order. 4 In this 
case, Korean imports have been declining since the imposition of the 
order. Additionally, the domestic interested parties do not argue that 
Poongsan is attempting to increase its market share or that the 
company's declining imports indicate its attempt to increase market 
share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Sunset Policy Bulletin at section II.B.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we determine that the margins determined in the original 
investigations are probative of the behavior of Brazilian, French and 
Korean producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip if the orders 
were revoked.

Final Results of Reviews

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil:
  Eluma Corporation.........................................       40.62
  All Others................................................       40.62
France:
  Trefimetaux, S.A..........................................       42.24
  All Others................................................       42.24
Korea:
  Poongsan Metal Corporation................................        7.17
  All Others................................................        7.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 48354]]

protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the 
regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing five-year (``sunset'') reviews and 
notices 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. 99-23046 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P