[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49767-49770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23043]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-602]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip
From Germany
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: brass sheet
and strip from Germany.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Germany (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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 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
[[Page 49768]]
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 Germany. 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 Germany
was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 1987 (52 FR 6997).
1 In that order, the Department indicated that the weighted-
average dumping margins of brass sheet and strip from Germay were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Brass Sheet and Strip From the
Federal Republic of Germany, 52 FR 6997 (March 6, 1987), as amended,
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment
to Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany, 52 FR
35750 (April 8, 1987).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
Manufactures/producers/ exporters Margins
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-Werke AG (``Wieland-AG'').......................... 3.81
Langenberg Kupfer-und Messingwerke GmbH KG................. 16.18
All-others................................................. 7.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has completed numerous administrative reviews since
that time. 2 Also, in one administrative review, the
Department found that Wieland did not circumvent the antidumping duty
order. 3 The order remains in effect for all manufacturers
and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From the Federal Republic of
Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
November 27, 1991 (56 FR 60087); Brass Sheet and Strip From the
Federal Republic of Germany; Amendment to Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, January 3, 1992 (57 FR 276);
Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, July 25, 1995 (60 FR 38031); Brass Sheet
and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, July 27, 1995 (60 FR 38542); Brass Sheet and
Strip From Germany; Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18720); Brass Sheet
and Strip From Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part,
September 23, 1996 (61 FR 49727); Brass Sheet and Strip From
Germany; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38256); Brass Sheet and Strip From
Germany; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
August 11, 1998 (63 FR 42823); Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany, 64 FR
43342 (August 10, 1999).
\3\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Negative Final
Determination of Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 56 FR
65884 (December 19, 1991). The Department determined that C.D.A.
667-series manganese brass was not a minor alteration of brass sheet
and strip of the C.D.A. 200-series, and consequently, that Wieland
did not circumvent the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background:
On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping order on brass sheet and strip from Germany (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.
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. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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 they concurred with the
Department's decision. See May 12, 1999, 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 the Germany 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. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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
[[Page 49769]]
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
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
claim that revocation of the order will likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping of brass sheet and strip from Germany (see March
3, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties at 38).
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
submit an argument that, since the imposition of the order, dumping of
the subject merchandise has continued and is presently persisting above
the de minimis level. Id. at 39-40. 6 As a result, the
domestic interested parties conclude that dumping of the subject
merchandise will continue were the order revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Department, in its first review, determined that
Langenberg Kupfer-und Messingwerke GmbH KG and Metallwerke
Schwarwald GmbH are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Wieland-AG. See
Brass Sheet and Strip From the Federal Republic of Germany; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, November 27, 1991
(56 FR 60087). For the investigated period of 1986-1988, the
Department found dumping margins for Wieland-AG of 14.65 percent
(see Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38256))
(this is a third and final amendment of the final results of the
first review, 56 FR 60087), and for William Prym and Schwermetall
Halbzeugwerke of 23.49 percent (see Brass Sheet and Strip From the
Federal Republic of Germany; Amendment to Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, January 3, 1992 (57 FR 276))
(this is the first amendment of the first review, 56 FR 60087).
Since that time the Department has dealt exclusively with Wieland-AG
as a lone respondent interested party in subsequent administrative
reviews. For subsequent administrative reviews, Wieland-AG's dumping
margins were 2.57 percent for 1990-1991, 2.37 percent for 1991-1992,
0.37 percent for 1992-1993, 0.495 percent for 1993-1994, 0 percent
for 1994-1995, 16.18 percent for 1996-1997, and 16.18 percent for
1997-1998. See footnote 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 56.8 million
pounds verses 25.4 million pounds--a 55.2 percent decline. Id. In
addition, the domestic interested parties note that imports of the
subject merchandise continued to fall: 7.4 million pounds in 1992, 4.9
million pounds in 1993, and 2.6 million pounds in 1994. Id. Finally,
the domestic interested parties emphasize that, during 1995-1998, the
import volumes of the subject merchandise have never exceeded 10
percent of the pre-order volumes. Id.
While acknowledging that the weighted-average dumping margin for
Wieland-AG had, at one point, been de minimis for three consecutive
years, the domestic interested parties contend that this is not
indicative of what will happen if the order is revoked. The domestic
interested parties suggest that Wieland-AG had achieved zero or de
minimis margin by further reducing its exports of the subject
merchandise during the period. In addition, the domestic interested
parties direct our attention to the Department's previous decision in
which the Department, despite Wieldand-AG's de minimis margins in three
consecutive administrative reviews, refused to grant revocation on
behalf of Wieland-AG because, the Department could not determine that
Wieland-AG will be able to export the subject merchandise priced at or
above fair value. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Brass and Strip From Germany; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not To
Revoke in Part, 61 FR 49727 (September 23, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 German
producers/exporters are 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, at least for some German producers and exporters of
brass sheet and strip and currently remain in place. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See supra footnote 2, for the list of final determinations
of administrative reviews in which the Department found above de
minimis weighted-average margins for, at least, some German
producers/exporters in all periods of investigation. Also, see supra
footnote 6 for a history of weighted-average dumping margins found
for the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49770]]
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the volume of imports before and after 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. In addition, the Department's findings of either zero or de
minimis margins coincide with further decline of import volumes of the
subject merchandise. Moreover, for the period 1995-1998, annual import
volumes never rose to even 10 percent of the pre-order volumes.
Therefore, the Department determines that the import volumes of the
subject merchandise have decreased significantly after the issuance of
the order.
Given that dumping has continued over the life of the order, import
volumes of the subject merchandise decreased significantly after the
issuance of the order, respondent interested parties have waived their
right to participate in this review, that there are no arguments and/or
evidence to the contrary, the Department agrees with the domestic
interested parties' contention 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 weighted-average dumping margins for Wieland-AG
and all others of 3.81 and 7.30 percent, respectively (52 FR 822,
January 9, 1987), as amended, (52 FR 35750, September 23, 1987). We
also note that the Department has found duty absorption in the most
recently completed administrative review. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In its latest review, noting that it determined a margin
exists for Wieland-AG on adverse facts available and, lacking other
information, the Department found that duty absorption exists on all
sales. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews:
Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany, 64 FR 43342 (August 10, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties urge
that the Department should choose more recently calculated margins
rather than those determined in the original investigation. (See March
3, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties at 47-
48.) The domestic interested parties stress that when companies
increase dumping in order to maintain or enhance their market share,
increasing margins may be more representative of a company's behavior
in the absence of an order. Since Wieland-AG was found dumping at
higher margins (than original margins) in two most recent
administrative reviews, and since Wieland-AG has been historically able
to dump at even higher rates with the order in place, the domestic
interested parties assert, the more recently calculated rate of 16.18
percent should be used for Wieland-AG.
The Department disagrees with the domestic interested parties'
argument as to why the Department should select a more recently
calculated margin for Wieland-AG 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 Wieland-AG has 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 Wieland-AG to expand market share by
increasing dumping. Therefore, but for the reason discussed below, the
Department would not deviate from its normal policy of selecting the
rate from the original 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.
Specifically, section II.B.3.b of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA, at 885, and the House Report at 60, provide that the Department
normally will provide to the Commission the higher of the margin that
the Department otherwise would have reported to the Commission or the
most recent margin for that company adjusted to account for the
Department's findings on duty absorption if the Department has found
duty absorption. The Department explained that it normally will adjust
a company's most recent margin to reflect its findings on duty
absorption by incorporating the amount of duty absorption on those
sales for which the Department found duty absorption. In the most
instant review, the Department found duty absorption exists on ``all''
of Wieland-AG's exports to the United States. Consistent with the
Sunset Policy Bulletin, we are adjusting the most recent margin to
account for duty absorption. Because the adjusted margin for Wieland-AG
is higher than rates from the original investigation, we will report to
the Commission a recently calculated margin that takes into account the
recent duty absorption finding as 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wieland-AG................................................. 32.36
All others................................................. 7.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 99-23043 Filed 9-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P