[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50271-50273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24195]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-506]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cooking Ware From the People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: porcelain-
on-steel cooking ware from the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
porcelain-on-steel (``POS'') cooking ware from the People's Republic of 
China (``China'') 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 a 
domestic interested party, and inadequate response (in this case, no 
response) from respondent interested parties, the Department is 
conducting an expedited review. As a result of this review, the 
Department finds that revocation of the antidumping order would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the level 
indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. and 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050 
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review is 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

    Imports covered by this order are shipments of POS cooking ware 
from China, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained 
electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of 
steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. The merchandise 
is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 
item 7323.94.00. The HTS subheading is provided for convenience and 
U.S. Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    In response to a request from CGS International, on January 30, 
1991, the Department, clarified that high quality, hand finished 
cookware, including the small basin, medium basin, large basin, small 
colander, large colander, 8'' bowl, 6'' bowl, mugs, ash tray, napkin 
rings, utensil holder and utensils, ladle, cream & sugar, and mixing 
bowls are properly considered kitchen ware and are therefore, outside 
the scope of the order. Further, the Department clarified that CGS 
International's casserole, 12-cup coffee pot, 6-cup coffee pot, 
roasting pan, oval roaster, and butter warmer are within the scope of 
the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 56 FR 19833 (April 30, 1991)).
    In response to a request from Texsport, on August 8, 1990, the 
Department determined that camping sets, with the exception of the cups 
and plates included in those sets, are within the scope of the order 
(see Notice of Scope Rulings, 55 FR 43020 (October 25, 1990)).

History of the Order

    On October 10, 1986, the Department issued a final determination of 
sales at less-than-fair value on imports of POS cooking ware from 
China.1 The antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from 
China was issued by the Department on December 2, 1986.2 In 
the Department's investigation of the subject merchandise a dumping 
margin of 66.65 percent was assigned to China National Light Industrial 
Products Imports and Export Corporation. In addition an ``all others'' 
rate of 66.65 percent was assigned. The Department has conducted 
several administrative reviews since the issuance of this order. 
3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair 
Value, 51 FR 36419 (October 10, 1986).
    \2\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's 
Republic of China; Antidumping Duty Order; 51 FR 43414 (December 2, 
1986).
    \3\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 55 FR 46850 (November 7, 1990); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking 
Ware from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 11632 (March 29, 
1990); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 
FR 55891 (October 30, 1991); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from 
the People's Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 57 FR 30717 (July 10, 1992); Porcelain-on-
Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 32757 (June 
17, 1997); Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's 
Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 54825 (October 22, 1997); and Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 27262 (May 18, 1998).

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

[[Page 50272]]

    The antidumping duty order remains in effect for all producers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise.

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from China pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Act. On February 16, 1999 we received a Notice of 
Intent to Participate on behalf of a domestic interested party, 
Columbian Home Products, LLC (``CHP''), within the deadline specified 
in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. On March 3, 
1999, the Department received a complete substantive response from CHP 
within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. CHP claimed interested party status under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act, as a U.S. producer of POS cooking ware. CHP 
asserts that it is the sole domestic producer of POS cooking ware.
    We did not receive any response from respondent interested parties 
to this proceeding. As a result, and in accordance with our regulations 
(19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)) we are conducting an expedited review.
    On June 7, 1999. the Department determined that the sunset review 
of the antidumping duty order on POS cooking ware from China 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). In 
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department 
extended the time limit for completion of final results of this review 
until no later than August 30, 1999.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of 
Five-Year (``Sunset'') 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)(1) 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. 
Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department 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 magnitude of the margin are discussed below. 
In addition, CHP's comments with respect to the 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 basis for 
likelihood determinations. The Department clarified that determinations 
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2 
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally 
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 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
    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 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 its substantive response, CHP argues that dumping would be 
likely to continue or recur if the antidumping duty order on POS 
cooking ware from China were revoked. CHP argues that the relationship 
between dumping margins and import volumes strongly suggests that 
dumping will continue at significant margins if the order were revoked.
    CHP asserts that in the seven administrative reviews completed by 
the Department, dumping margins have consistently been above de 
minimis. Further, CHP argues that with few exceptions, the margins 
determined for Chinese exporters in the administrative reviews have 
remained at 66.65 percent--the rate determined in the original 
investigation.
    With respect to imports of the subject merchandise from China, CHP 
asserts that imports decreased immediately after the issuance of the 
order, from 1.8 million units in 1985 to 0.4 million units in 1987. CHP 
states that imports have been increasing in recent years but argues 
that only in 1993 and 1996 did imports exceed the 1985 pre-order level 
of imports. Finally, CHP argues that imports decreased significantly in 
1997 and 1998.
    In conclusion, CHP argues that a decrease in import volume after 
the issuance of the order, coupled with the continuation of dumping 
margins above de minimis levels, is probative that producers and 
exporters of POS cooking ware from China will continue to dump if the 
order were revoked. Therefore, CHP argues that the Department should 
determine that there is a likelihood of the continuation of dumping of 
POS cooking ware from China if the order were to be revoked.
    As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, existence of dumping margins 
after the order is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation 
or recurrence of dumping. If companies continue to dump with the 
discipline of an order in place, the Department may reasonably infer 
that dumping would continue if the discipline of the order were 
revoked. A dumping margin above de minimis continues to exist for 
shipments of the subject merchandise from China National Light 
Industrial Products Imports and Export Corporation. Therefore, given 
that dumping above de minimis has continued over the life of the order, 
that respondent interested parties waived their right to participate in 
the instant review, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, 
the Department determines that dumping would likely continue if the

[[Page 50273]]

order were revoked for POS cooking ware from China.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department will provide 
to the Commission the company-specific margin from the investigation 
because that is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of 
exporters without the discipline of an order. 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.) We note that, to 
date, we have not issued any duty absorption finding in this case.
    In its substantive response, CHP urges the Department to follow the 
guidance of the SAA and its stated policy and provide the Commission 
margins from the original investigation of 66.65 percent for China 
National Light Industrial Products Import and Export Corporation and 
the PRC-wide rate of 66.65 percent.
    We agree with CHP's assertion that we should report to the 
Commission the rate from the original investigation. As noted in the 
Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin, margins from the original 
investigation are the only calculated rates that reflect the behavior 
of exporters without the discipline of the order in place. The 
Department, in this case, finds this rate is the most probative of the 
behavior of this company if the finding were revoked absent information 
and argument to the contrary. Therefore, we will report to the 
Commission the margins contained in the Final Results of Review of this 
notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of 
the antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China National Light Industrial Products/Import and Export         66.65
 Corporation...............................................
Country-wide rate..........................................        66.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 27, 1999.
Bernard T. Carreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-24195 Filed 9-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P