[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67865-67867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-703, A-588-707]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Granular 
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy and Japan

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Granular 
polytetrafluoroethylene resin from Italy and Japan.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin (``PTFE'') from Italy and 
Japan (64 FR 23596) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of notices of intent to 
participate and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of 
domestic interested parties and inadequate response (in these cases, no 
response) from respondent interested parties, the Department determined 
to conduct expedited reviews. As a result of these reviews, the 
Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would 
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the 
levels indicated in the Final Results of Reviews section of this 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla D. Brown 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-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 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'') and 19 CFR Part 351 (1999) in 
general. 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 these antidumping duty orders is PTFE 
from Italy and Japan. The subject merchandise is defined as granular 
PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. The order explicitly excludes PTFE 
dispersions in water and PTFE fine powders. Such merchandise is 
currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item 
number 3904.61.00. This HTS item number is provided for convenience and 
customs purposes only. The written description remains dispositive.
    There has been one scope ruling with respect to the order on PTFE 
from Japan in which reprocessed PTFE powder was determined to be 
outside the scope of the order (57 FR 57420; December 4, 1992). The 
Department issued a circumvention determination in which it determined 
that PTFE wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States 
falls within the scope of the order on PTFE from Italy (58 FR 26100; 
April 30, 1993).
    These reviews cover imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
PTFE from Italy and Japan.

History of the Orders

Italy

    The Department published its final affirmative determination of 
sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') with respect to imports of 
PTFE from Italy on July 11, 1988 (53 FR 26096). In this determination, 
the Department published a weighted-average dumping margin for one 
company as well as an

[[Page 67866]]

``all others'' rate. These margins were subsequently affirmed when the 
Department published its antidumping duty order on PTFE from Italy on 
August 30, 1988 (53 FR 33163). The Department has conducted several 
administrative reviews of this order since its imposition.1 
The order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the 
subject merchandise from Italy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 50854 
(December 11, 1990); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from 
Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 
FR 58031 (November 15, 1991); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 
from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
60 FR 19884 (April 21, 1995); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 
from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
60 FR 53737 (October 17, 1995); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene 
Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 25195 (May 20, 1996); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene 
Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 5590 (February 6, 1997); as amended, Granular 
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 23219 (April 29, 
1997); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 48592 
(September 16, 1997); Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from 
Italy, 63 FR 49080 (September 14, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japan

    On July 5, 1988, the Department issued its affirmative final 
determination of sales at LTFV regarding PTFE from Japan (53 FR 25191). 
In this determination, the Department published weighted-average 
dumping margins for two companies as well as an ``all others'' rate. 
These margins were upheld when the antidumping duty order on PTFE from 
Japan was published on August 24, 1988 (53 FR 32267). Since the order 
was published, the Department has conducted three administrative 
reviews with respect to PTFE from Japan.2 The order remains 
in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise from Japan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 50343 
(September 27, 1993); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from 
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 
FR 33188 (June 27, 1995); Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin 
from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
61 FR 2489 (January 26, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has not issued any duty-absorption findings in 
either of these cases.

Background

    On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on PTFE from Italy and Japan (64 FR 23596), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. For both of the reviews, the 
Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of E.I. 
DuPont de Nemours & Company (``DuPont''), on May 18, 1999, within the 
deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. Pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act, DuPont claimed 
interested party status as a domestic producer of the subject 
merchandise. The Department received complete substantive responses 
from DuPont on May 28, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in 
the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not 
receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to 
these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct expedited, 
120-day reviews of these orders.
    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). On September 7, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset 
reviews of the antidumping duty orders on PTFE from Italy and Japan are 
extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of these reviews until not later than November 29, 
1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 48579 (September 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making these determinations, 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 duty order and shall provide to the International Trade 
Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margins of dumping 
likely to prevail if the orders were revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are discussed 
below. In addition, DuPont's comments with respect to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins 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 it normally will determine that revocation of an 
antidumping duty 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 
conclude that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where an interested party waives 
its participation in the sunset review. In these instant reviews, the 
Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent 
interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the of the 
Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.

Italy

    In its substantive response, DuPont argues that revocation would 
likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping because dumping 
has continued over the life of the order at levels well above de 
minimis and that import volumes declined significantly after the 
issuance of the order. DuPont points out that, in the most recent

[[Page 67867]]

administrative review, the dumping margin for Ausimont S.p.A., an 
Italian manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, was 
calculated to be 45.72 percent, a significant increase from the margin 
of 5.95 percent determined in the preceeding administrative review (see 
May 28, 1999, substantive response of DuPont at 6). Moreover, DuPont 
argues that the post-order decline in import volumes provides further 
strong support for a determination that dumping is likely to continue 
or recur should the order be revoked. To support its argument DuPont 
pointed out that imports of PTFE from Italy declined by over 43 percent 
between 1987, the year preceding the order, and 1990, the second year 
following the order (see id. at 6-7).

Japan

    DuPont makes similar arguments regarding the likely effect of 
revocation of the Japanese order. Indeed, DuPont again argues that 
because dumping has continued over the life of the order at levels well 
above de minimis and import volumes declined significantly after the 
issuance of the order, the Department should determine that revocation 
of the order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping. DuPont points out that dumping margins at levels significantly 
above de minimis have been found in the three administrative reviews 
conducted by the Department. DuPont also maintains that PTFE imports 
from Japan decreased by over 78 percent between 1987, the year 
preceding the issuance of the order, and 1990, the second year 
following the order (see May 28, 1999, substantive response of DuPont 
at 5-6).
    As discussed in Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, 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 were 
removed. As pointed out above, dumping margins above de minimis 
continue to exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from Italy 
and Japan.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considers the volume of imports before and after issuance of the order. 
As demonstrated in each respective section above, DuPont argues that a 
significant decline in the volume of imports of the subject merchandise 
from Italy and Japan since the imposition of the orders provides 
further evidence that dumping would continue if the orders were 
revoked. Moreover, as mentioned above, in its substantive responses, 
DuPont provides statistics demonstrating the decline in import volumes 
of PTFE from Italy and Japan.
    Using the Department's statistics, including IM146 reports, on 
imports of the subject merchandise from these countries, we agree with 
the domestic interested parties' assertions that imports of the subject 
merchandise declined after the orders were imposed and have not 
regained pre-order volumes.
    As noted above, in conducting its sunset reviews, pursuant to 
section 752(c) of the Act, the Department considers the weighted-
average dumping margins and volume of imports before and after the 
imposition of the order when determining whether revocation of an 
antidumping duty order would lead to the continuation or recurrence of 
dumping. Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the 
existence of dumping margins above de minimis levels and a reduction in 
import volumes after the issuance of the orders is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate 
above a de minimis level continues in effect for imports of the subject 
merchandise from at least one Italian and one Japanese manufacturer/
exporter. Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of 
the orders, import volumes declined significantly after the imposition 
of the orders, respondent parties waived participation, and absent 
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that 
dumping is likely to continue if the orders were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it 
normally will 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.) To date, the Department has not issued any duty-absorption 
findings in either of these cases.
    In their substantive responses, DuPont recommends that, consistent 
with the Sunset Policy Bulletin,  Department provide to the Commission 
the company-specific margins from the original investigations. 
Moreover, regarding companies not reviewed in the original 
investigation, DuPont suggested that the Department report the ``all 
others'' rates included in the original investigations.
    The Department agrees with DuPont. The Department finds that the 
margins calculated in the original investigation are probative of the 
behavior of Italian and Japanese producers and/or exporters if the 
orders were revoked as they are the only margins which reflect their 
behavior without the discipline of the order in place. Therefore, the 
Department will report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all 
others'' rates from the original investigations as contained in the 
Final Results of Reviews section of this notice.

Final Results of Reviews

    As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation 
of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Italy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montefluos S.p.A./Ausimont U.S.A...........................        46.46
All Others.................................................        46.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin Industries, Inc.....................................       103.00
Asahi Fluoropolymers Co., Ltd..............................        51.45
All Others.................................................        91.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    These five-year (``sunset'') reviews and notices are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 24, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31430 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P