[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53996-53998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-811]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Drafting Machines From 
Japan

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: drafting 
machines from Japan.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on drafting machines from Japan 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 
determined to conduct an expedited sunset 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 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, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050 
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review was 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 merchandise subject to this order includes drafting machines 
that are finished, unfinished, assembled, or unassembled, and drafting 
machine kits. The term ``drafting machine'' refers to ``track'' or 
``elbow-type'' drafting machines used by designers, engineers, 
architects, layout artists, and others. Drafting machines are devices 
for aligning scales (or rulers) at a variety of angles anywhere on a 
drawing surface, generally a drafting board. A protractor head allows 
angles to be read and set and lines to be drawn. The machine is 
generally clamped to the board. Also included within the scope are 
parts of drafting machines. Parts include, but are not limited to, 
horizontal and vertical tracks, parts of horizontal and vertical 
tracks, band and pulley mechanisms, protractor heads, and parts of 
protractor heads, destined for use in drafting machines. Accessories, 
such as parallel rulers, lamps and scales are not subject to this 
order. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') item numbers 9017.10.00 and 9017.90.00. (This 
merchandise was previously classified under item number 710.8025 of the 
Tariff Schedule of the United States.) The HTS item numbers are 
provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written 
description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    On November 8, 1989, the Department issued a final determination of 
sales at less than fair value on imports of drafting machines from 
Japan.1 On December 29, 1989, the antidumping duty order on 
the subject merchandise was published in the Federal 
Register.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Drafting Machines and Parts Thereof From Japan; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 54 FR 46961 
(November 8, 1989).
    \2\ See Drafting Machines and Parts Thereof From Japan; 
Antidumping Duty Order, 54 FR 53671 (December 29, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the antidumping duty order the Department established an 
estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 90.87 percent for (one 
respondent)

[[Page 53997]]

Mutoh Industries, Ltd. (``Mutoh''), and an ``all others'' rate of 90.87 
percent. Id. There have been no administrative reviews of this order, 
and no investigations of duty absorption by the Department.
    The order remains in effect for Mutoh, and all other producers and 
exporters of drafting machines from Japan.

Background

    On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on drafting machines from Japan pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Act. On June 16, 1999 we received a Notice of 
Intent to Participate on behalf of Vemco Drafting Products Corporation 
(``Vemco''), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) 
of the Sunset Regulations. We received a complete substantive response 
from the domestic interested party on July 1, 1999, within the deadline 
specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Vemco 
claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a 
U.S. manufacturer of a domestic like product. Vemco was the petitioner 
in the original investigation.
    We did not receive any response from respondent interested parties 
in this review. As a result, and in accordance with our regulations (19 
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)) we determined to conduct an expedited 
sunset review of this order.

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, Vemco'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, Vemco argues that dumping is likely to 
continue or recur if the antidumping duty order on drafting machines 
from Japan were revoked because sales of the subject merchandise to the 
United States declined to negligible amounts after the Department 
imposed the antidumping duty order. Therefore, Vemco asserts that this 
action serves as evidence that producers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise cannot sell in any significant quantities in the United 
States without dumping.
    Specifically, with regard to imports of the subject merchandise, 
Vemco asserts that prior to the imposition of this order, import 
volumes of drafting machines to the U.S. were substantial (see Vemco's 
Substantive Response, July 1, 1999 at 7), and that after the imposition 
of the order, Mutoh America, ceased its imports of drafting machines 
from Japan.3 Because the applicable HTS item numbers cover 
imports in addition to the subject merchandise, (i.e., cover a basket 
category) in further support of its assertion that sales ceased to the 
U.S., Vemco submitted an affidavit from Mr. Paul McManigal Vemco's Vice 
President (see Attachment 1 of Vemco's Substantive Response). In the 
affidavit, Mr. Paul McManigal states that since the imposition of the 
order he has closely monitored imports of drafting machines. Mr. 
McManigal notes that in the year following the issuance of the order 
imports declined in negligible amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\  Vemco variously asserts that imports of drafting machines 
from Japan have declined significantly, on the one hand, and ceased 
altogether, on the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the existence of dumping margins, Vemco notes that 
in the Department's final determination of sales at less than fair 
value, the Department assigned a dumping margin to Mutoh and ``all 
others'' of 90.87 percent; the duty deposit rate of 90.87 percent still 
exists.
    In conclusion, Vemco argues that a decline in import volume after 
the issuance of the order, coupled with the continuation of dumping 
margins above the de minimis level, is probative that producers and 
exporters of drafting machines from Japan will continue to dump if the 
order were revoked. Therefore, Vemco maintains that the Department 
should determine that there is a likelihood of the continuation of 
dumping of drafting machines from Japan 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 issued 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. We agree with Vemco that dumping margins above the de minimis 
level continue to exist for Mutoh, the only respondent reviewed in the 
original investigation.
    Although Vemco asserts at various points in its argument that 
imports of drafting machines from Japan ceased entirely after the 
imposition of the order, the import statistics do not conclusively 
support a finding of

[[Page 53998]]

cessation of imports. As noted above, imports of the subject 
merchandise enter the United States under an HTS basket category (i.e., 
entries of non-subject merchandise are also reported under the same 
item number). After examining the Department's import trade statistics, 
we find that imports declined significantly after the issuance of the 
order. We are unable to determine from the statistics however whether 
the negilible imports under the HTS item number are of subject or non-
subject merchandise.
    As noted in the SAA, declining import volumes, accompanied by the 
continued existence of dumping margins after the issuance of the order 
may provide a strong indication that, absent an order, dumping would be 
likely to continue, because the evidence would indicate that the 
exporter needs to dump to sell at pre-order volumes. Therefore it is 
reasonable to conclude that Japanese producers and exporters of the 
subject merchandise cannot sell in the United States without dumping. 
Given that dumping above de minimis continued over the life of the 
order, imports decreased significantly after the issuance of the order, 
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 or recur if 
the order on drafting machines from Japan were revoked.

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.)
    The Department, in its final affirmative determination of sales at 
less than fair value, published a weighted-average dumping margin of 
90.87 percent for one Japanese producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise, and an ``all others'' rate of 90.87 percent.
    With respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if 
the order were revoked, in its substantive response, Vemco urged the 
Department to follow the guidance of the SAA and its stated policy and 
provide to the Commission the margins from the original investigation.
    We agree with Vemco's assertion that we should report to the 
Commission the rate from the original investigation. Consistent with 
the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department, in this case, finds that 
the rates from the original investigation are the most probative of the 
behavior of Japanese producers and exporters of drafting machines if 
the order were to be revoked. Therefore, absent information and 
argument to the contrary, we see no reason to deviate from our stated 
policy, and 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutoh Industries, Ltd. (Mutoh).............................        90.87
All Others.................................................        90.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: September 29, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-25874 Filed 10-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P