[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50487-50489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24298]



[[Page 50487]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-583-508]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel 
Cooking Ware From Taiwan

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 Taiwan.

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

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 Taiwan 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 levels 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. & 
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050 
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATES: September 17, 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

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is POS cooking 
ware from Taiwan that do not have self-contained electric heating 
elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are 
enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. Kitchenware and teakettles 
are not subject to this order. The merchandise is currently 
classifiable under the HTS item 7323.94.00. The HTS subheading is 
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes.
    On October 30, 1996, Cost Plus, Inc.'s 10 piece porcelain-on-steel 
fondue set was found to be within the scope of the order (see Notice of 
Scope Rulings, 62 FR 9176 (February 28, 1992)).
    On August 18, 1995, Blair Corporation's Blair cooking ware items 
#1101 (seven piece cookware set), #271911 (eight-quart stock pot), and 
#271921(twelve-quart stock pot) were found to be outside the scope of 
the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 60 FR 36782 (July 18, 1995)).
    On September 3, 1992, in response to a request from Mr. Stove Ltd., 
stove top grills and drip pans were found to be outside the scope of 
the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 57 FR 57420 (December 4, 
1992)).
    On September 25, 1992, in response to a request from Metrokane 
Inc., the ``Pasta Time'' pasta cooker was found to be within the scope 
of the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 57 FR 57420 (December 4, 
1992)).
    On August 23, 1990, in response to a request from RSVP, BBQ grill 
baskets were found to be outside 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 
Taiwan.1 On December 2, 1986, the antidumping duty order for 
POS cooking from Taiwan was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 
43416).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware from Taiwan; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value, 51 FR 36425 (October 
10, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the original investigation, the Department found dumping margins 
that ranged from 1.99 percent to 23.12 percent for six Taiwanese 
producers and exporters of the subject merchandise. With the exception 
of one changed circumstance review, there have been no administrative 
reviews of this order.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from Taiwan: Final 
Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, and Revocation in Part of Antidumping Duty Order, 62 FR 
10024 (March 5, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The antidumping duty order remains in effect for all producers and 
exporters of POS cooking ware from Taiwan.

Background

    On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on POS cooking ware from Taiwan 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 
in this review. As a result, and in accordance with our regulations (19 
CFR Sec. 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)) we are conducting an expedited 
review.
    The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping 
duty order on POS cooking ware fromTaiwan 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 final 
results of this review until no later than August 30, 1999, in 
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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

[[Page 50488]]

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 Taiwan were revoked. CHP argues that the relationship 
between dumping margins and import volumes strongly suggests that 
dumping will continue at significant margins if the orders were 
revoked.
    CHP argues that in the Department's final determination of sales at 
less-than-fair-value, six producers/exporters of POS cooking ware from 
Taiwan were assigned dumping margins ranging from 1.99 to 23.12 
percent. CHP asserts that each of these margins are above the 0.5 
percent de minimis standard applied in sunset reviews, and these 
dumping margins continue to exist.
    With respect to imports of the subject merchandise from Taiwan, CHP 
argues that imports have decreased significantly since the antidumping 
duty order was put in place. Citing the Department's Bureau of Census 
import trade statistics, CHP argues that since the imposition of the 
order, imports from Taiwan declined by 75 percent. Further, CHP argues 
that in the most recent five years (1994 to 1998), imports declined by 
more than 60 percent, from 4,293 (thousand units) to 1,643 (thousand 
units).4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CHP's Substantive Response, March 3, 1999, Attachment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Taiwan will continue to dump if the 
order were revoked. Therefore, CHP maintains that the Department should 
determine that there is a likelihood of the continuation of dumping of 
POS cooking ware from Taiwan if the order were 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. Dumping margins above de minimis levels continue to exist for 
companies subject to this order. Therefore, given that dumping above de 
minimis continued over the life of the orders, imports decreased 
significantly after the order, respondent interested parties waived 
their right to participate in the instant reviews, and absent argument 
and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping 
would likely continue if the order were revoked for POS cooking ware 
from Taiwan.

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 margins 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 these cases.
    In its substantive response, CHP urges the Department to follow the 
guidance of the SAA and its stated policy and provide to the Commission 
the margins from the original investigation.
    CHP argues that the Department should apply the rates from the 
original investigation because they are the only rates available to the 
Department, given that there have been no administrative reviews of 
this order.
    We agree with CHP. Absent argument and evidence to the contrary, we 
find that the margins calculated in the original investigation are 
probative of the behavior of Taiwanese producers/exporters if the order 
were revoked. 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Enamel Industrial Corp............................            9.04
Tian Shine Enterprise Co., Ltd..........................            1.99
Tou Tien Metal (Taiwan) Co., Ltd........................            2.67
Li-Fong Industrial Corp.................................            2.63
Li-Mow Enamelling Co., Ltd..............................            6.48
Receive Will Industry Co., Ltd..........................           23.12

[[Page 50489]]

 
All Others..............................................            6.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-24298 Filed 9-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P