[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 176 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49444-49446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-401-601]


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

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

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

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

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 Sweden (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, a waiver) 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 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 Sweden. 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 and 7409.29.00. 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 Sweden was 
published in the Federal Register on March 6, 1987 (52 FR 
6998).1 In that order, the Department indicated that the 
weighted-average dumping margin for all entries of brass sheet and 
strip from Sweden is 9.49 percent.2 Since that time, the 
Department has completed several administrative reviews.3 
The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the 
subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From 
Sweden, March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6998).
    \2\ However, the order and subsequent reviews dealt with only 
one Swedish company, Outokumpu (in the original investigation, 
Outokumpu was doing business under the name Metallverken Nederland 
B.V., see March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of the domestic 
interested parties at 27).
    \3\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, November 27, 1990 (55 FR 
49317); Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, January 23, 1992 (57 FR 
2706); Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Amendment to Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, May 7, 1991 (56 FR 
21128); Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, July 1, 1992 (57 FR 29278); 
Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Affirmation of the Results of 
Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, April 28, 1994 (59 FR 
21958); and Brass Sheet and Strip From Sweden: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, January 18, 1995 (60 FR 
3617).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping order on brass sheet and strip from Sweden (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'') (formerly American 
Brass Company),4 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

[[Page 49445]]

in the production of subject brass sheet and strip in the United 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Outokumpu American Brass is opposing continuation of the 
antidumping duty order against Sweden. See March 3, 1999 Substantive 
Response of the domestic interested parties at page 3, footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 received a statement of waiver from respondent interested party, 
Outokumpu, to this proceeding, (see Outokumpu's March 3, 1999 Statement 
of Waiver). In its waiver, Outokumpu made unsolicited comments that it 
no longer produces the subject merchandise in Sweden, and that it 
dismantled and removed the machinery required to produce the subject 
merchandise from Swedish plants.5 As a result of Outokumpu's 
filing of waiver, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the 
Department determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day, review of this 
order.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ To support this, Outokumpu submitted two unsolicited 
affidavits, each attesting to the fact that Outokumpu no longer 
produces the subject merchandise in Sweden: one from Programme 
Director of Trade Policy for the Federation of Swedish Industries 
and the other from Division for the Americas Desk Officer at the 
Swedish Ministry for Foregin Affairs. Nonetheless, as per section 
351.218(d)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulation, the Department did not 
consider the unsolicited comments made by Outokumpu in making its 
determination.
    \6\ The domestic interested parties filed comments, pertaining 
to the Department's decision to conduct a expedited (120-day) sunset 
review for the present review, in which the domestic party 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 Sweden 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.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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, 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 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 the instant review, the 
Department received a statement of waiver from the only respondent 
interested party, Outokumpu.
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
propose that revocation of the order will likely lead to continuation 
or recurrence of dumping of brass sheet and strip from Sweden (see 
March 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties 
at 44-45). To illustrate their contention, the domestic interested 
parties point out a drastic decline of import volumes of the subject 
merchandise since the issuance of the order. Also, the domestic 
interested parties indicate that, since the imposition of the order, 
dumping of the subject merchandise has continued and is presently 
persisting above the de minimis level. Id. 39-40.8 As a 
result, the domestic interested parties conclude, dumping of the 
subject merchandise will continue if the order were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ After finding all exporters/manufacturers were dumping the 
subject merchandise at a weighted-average margins of 9.49 in the 
less than fair value investigation, the Department has dealt 
exclusively with Outokumpu as a lone respondent interested party in 
all the subsequent administrative reviews. For the following 
reviews, Outokumpu's dumping margins were as indicated: 5.64 percent 
for 1986-1988, 5.41 percent for 1988-1989, 6.32 percent for 1989-
1990, 9.49 percent for 1990-1991, 8.60 percent for 1991-1992., see 
footnote 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the import volumes of the subject merchandise, the 
domestic interested parties note that the post-order import volume in 
1987 was a mere 35.4 percent of the pre-order import volume in 1985. 
Id.9 In addition, the domestic interested parties state that 
imports of the subject merchandise continue to decline: just 189,000

[[Page 49446]]

pounds in 1992, no imports for 1993-1997, and in 1998 just 761 pounds. 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The domestic interested parties acknowledge that during 
1987-1991 the imports of the subject merchandise increased slightly; 
nonetheless, they remained well below the 1985 level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, the domestic interested parties urge that the 
Department should find that dumping would be likely to continue if the 
order is revoked because dumping margins for the subject merchandise 
have existed significantly above the de minimis level over the life of 
the order, because the imports of the subject merchandise immediately 
and substantially declined after the issuance of the order, and because 
the imports of the subject merchandise have become nearly non-existent 
since 1992. The aforementioned circumstances, according to the domestic 
interested parties, provide a clear indication that the Swedish brass 
industry is unable to sell in the United States without dumping.
    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 Swedish 
producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See footnote 3, supra, for the list of final determinations 
of administrative reviews in which the Department found above de 
minimis weighted-average margins for Swedish producers/exporters in 
all periods of investigation. Also, see footnotes 7, supra for a 
history of weighted-average dumping margins found for the subject 
merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after the issuance of the 
order. The data supplied by the domestic interested parties and those 
of the United States Census Bureau IM146s and the United States 
International Trade Commission indicate that, since the imposition of 
the order, import volumes of the subject merchandise have declined 
substantially. Namely, the import volumes of the subject merchandise 
declined substantially immediately following the imposition of the 
order. Moreover, for the period 1994-1998, Census Bureau IM 146 data do 
not reflect any annual imports of the subject merchandise.11 
Therefore, the Department determines that the import volumes of the 
subject merchandise decreased significantly after the issuance of the 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Although domestic interested parties state that 761 pounds 
of the subject merchandise were imported in 1998, no source is given 
for this figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that dumping has continued over the life of the order; that 
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 the Swedish brass 
industry is incapable of selling 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 Outokumpu 
and ``all others': 9.49 percent (52 FR 819, January 9, 
1987).12 We note that, to date, the Department has not 
issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See footnote 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, citing the SAA at 890 and the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin, the domestic interested parties state that the 
Department normally will provide the Commission with the dumping 
margins from the investigation because those are the only calculated 
margins that reflect the behavior of exporters without the discipline 
of the order in place. (See the March 3, 1999 Substantive Response of 
the domestic interested parties at 45-46.) Therefore, the domestic 
interested parties urge, the Department should abide by its practice, 
as set forth in the regulations, and should provide to the Commission 
the margin set forth in the original investigation.
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties' 
suggestion pertaining to the margin that is likely to prevail if the 
order were revoked. Because the original 9.49 percent margin accurately 
reflects the behavior of Swedish producers and exporters without the 
discipline of an order in place, the Department will provide to the 
Commission that margin found in the original investigation. Absent 
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department sees no reason to 
change its usual practice of selecting the rate from the original 
investigation. We 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outokumpu (formerly Metallverken AB).......................         9.49
All Others.................................................         9.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-23044 Filed 9-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P