[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73511-73515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33976]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-428-802; A-475-802; A-599-802; A-588-807]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Industrial Belts From 
Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Industrial 
Belts from Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on industrial belts from Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan (64 FR 
29261) 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 The Gates Rubber 
Company, a domestic interested party, 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: Kathryn B. McCormick 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, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 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 in 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 covered by the antidumping duty orders on Germany 
and Japan includes industrial belts other than V-belts and synchronous 
belts used for power transmission, in part or wholly of rubber or 
plastic, and containing textile fiber (including glass fiber) or steel 
wire, cord or strand, and whether in endless (i.e., closed loops) 
belts, or in belting in lengths or links from Germany and Japan.\1\ The

[[Page 73512]]

antidumping duty order on imports from Italy covers industrial V-belts 
and synchronous belts and components used for power transmission, in 
part or wholly of rubber or plastic, and containing textile fiber 
(including glass fiber) or steel wire, cord or strand, and whether in 
endless (i.e., closed loops) belts, or in belting in lengths or 
links.\2\ The antidumping duty order on imports from Singapore includes 
industrial V-belts used for power transmission. These include 
industrial V-belts, in part or wholly of rubber or plastic, and 
containing textile fiber (including glass fiber) or steel wire, cord or 
strand, and whether in endless (i.e., closed loops) belts, or in 
belting in lengths or links.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or 
Uncured, From the Federal Republic of Germany (54 FR 25316, March 
17, 1991), and Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value; Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether 
Cured or Uncured, From Japan, 54 FR 25314 (June 14, 1989).
    \2\ See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or 
Uncured, From Italy, 54 FR 25313 (June 14, 1989).
    \3\ See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; 
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or 
Uncured, From Singapore, 54 FR 25315 (June 14, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above orders exclude conveyor belts and automotive belts as 
well as front engine drive belts found on equipment powered by internal 
combustion engines, including trucks, tractors, buses, and lift truck.
    The subject merchandise was classifiable under Tariff Schedules of 
the United States Annotated (``TSUSA'') item numbers 358.0210, 
358.0290, 358.0610, 358.0690, 358.0800, 358.0900, 358.1100, 358.1400, 
358.1600, 657.2520, 773.3510, and 773.3520 in the orders for all four 
countries. Currently, subject merchandise is classifiable under item 
numbers 3926.90.55, 3926.90.56, 3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60, 
4010.10.10, 4010.10.50, 4010.91.11, 4010.91.15, 4010.91.50, 4010.99.11, 
4010.99.15, 4010.99.19, 4010.99.50, 5910.00.10, 5910.00.90 and 
7326.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Subject merchandise from Germany excludes item numbers 
3926.90.55, 4010.10.10, and 4010.10.50; subject merchandise from 
Singapore excludes item numbers 3926.90.56, 3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 
3926.90.60, 4010.91.11, 4010.91.15, 4010.91.19, 4010.99.11, 
4010.99.15, 4010.99.19, and 4010.99.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, The Gates Rubber Company (``Gates'') 
asserts that the HTSUS subheadings of Chapter 40 were significantly 
revised in 1996, and, as a result, the products covered by the orders 
became classifiable under HTSUS numbers 3626.90.55, 3926.90.56, 
3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60, 4010.21.30, 4010.21.60, 4010.22.30, 
4010.22.60, 4010.23.30, 4010.23.41, 4010.23.45, 4010.23.50, 4010.23.90, 
4010.24.30, 4010.24.41, 4010.24.45, 4010.24.50, 4010.24.90, 4010.29.10, 
4010.29.20, 4010.29.30, 4010.29.41, 4010.29.45, 4010.29.50, 4010.29.90, 
5910.00.10, 5910.00.90, and 7326.20.00.\5\ U.S. Customs officials 
confirmed the accuracy of the HTSUS numbers for subject merchandise 
suggested by Gates.\6\ However, the above HTSUS and TSUSA subheadings 
are provided for convenience and customs purposes and the written 
description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to Gates, subject merchandise from Germany 
excludes item numbers 3926.90.55, 4010.21.30, 4010.21.60, 
4010.22.30, 4010.22.60, 4010.23.30, 4010.23.41, 4010.23.45, 
4010.23.50, 4010.23.90, 4010.24.30, 4010.24.41, 4010.24.45, 
4010.24.50, 4010.24.90, 4010.29.10, and 4010.29.20 (see July 1, 
1999, Substantive Response of Gates at 3); and subject merchandise 
from Singapore excludes item numbers 3926.90.56, 3926.90.57, 
3926.90.59, 4010.23.30, 4010.23.41, 4010.23.45, 4010.23.50, 
4010.23.90, 4010.24.30, 4010.24.41, 4010.24.45, 4010.24.50, 
4010.24.90, 4010.29.30, 4010.29.41, 4010.29.45, 4010.29.50, 
4010.29.90 for imports (see July 1, 1999, Substantive Response of 
Gates at 3).
    \6\ See Memo to File of telephone conversation with George 
Barthes, U.S. Customs official, regarding new HTSUS numbers for 
industrial belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has made the following scope rulings for the orders 
on imports from Germany, Italy, and Japan:
    With respect to the order on subject imports from Germany, the 
Department's sole administrative review clarified that the scope of the 
order includes round belts and flat belts (56 FR 9672, March 7, 1991). 
Additionally, the Department determined in a 1991 scope ruling, that 
the scope of the order includes nylon core flat belts and excludes 
spindle belting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Scope Rulings, 56 FR 57320 (November 8, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the order on subject imports from Italy, the 
Department, in the February 24, 1993, Scope Ruling, determined that 
``Panther'' industrial belts from Pirelli Power Corp. are within the 
scope of the order (58 FR 11209).
    With respect to the order on subject imports from Japan, the 
Department has made several scope rulings. The following products were 
determined within the scope of the order:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Product within scope                     Importer                             Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V-volt model 5L118...................  Japan Freight Consolidators    57FR 16602 (May 7, 1992).
                                        (Calif.) Inc..
Closed loop synthetic timing belt      Tower Group International,     58 FR 47124 (September 7, 1993).
 used in the Epson LX-800 desk-top      Inc. and Epson America, Inc.
 personal computer printer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following products were determined to be not within the scope 
of the order:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Product outside scope                     Importer                             Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59011 series of belts................  Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA...  57 FR 19692 (May 7, 1992).
Certain round and flat belts which     Matsushita Electric Corp.,     57 FR 57420 (December 4, 1992).
 are composed of rubber or plastics     Matsushita Floor Care
 but are not reinforced with a          Company and Panasonic
 tensile member.                        Company.
Conveyor Belts of five-series          Nitta Industries Corp., and    58 FR 59991 (November 12, 1993).
 comprised of 30 models.                Nitta International, Inc.
Eight-drive and blade belts..........  Honda Power Equipment          62 FR 30569 (June 4, 1997).
                                        Manufacturing Inc.
Twenty-two drive and blade belts.....  American Honda Motor Co......  62 FR 30569 (June 4, 1997).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 73513]]

History of the Orders

Germany

    In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1998, 
through June 30, 1988, the Department determined the dumping margins to 
be 100.60 percent ad valorem for Optibelt Corporation (``Optibelt''), 
the Germany company investigated, and ``all others'' (54 FR 15505, 
April 18, 1989).
    Since the issuance of the order, there has been one administrative 
review, covering the period February 1, 1989, through May 31, 1990, in 
which the Department determined a dumping margin of 100.60 percent ad 
valorem for Volkmann GmbH (``Volkmann''), the German respondent subject 
to the review.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured, from the Federal Republic of Germany; 
Final Results of an Antidumping Administrative Review, 56 FR 9672 
(March 7, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Italy

    In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988, 
through June 30, 1998, the Department determined a dumping margin of 
74.90 percent ad valorem percent for Pirelli Trasmissioni Industriali, 
S.p.A. (``Pirelli''), and ``all others.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Italy; Amendment of Final Results of 
an Antidumping Administrative Review, 57 FR 32196 (July 21, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There have been two administrative reviews of this order. In the 
first review, covering the period from February 1, 1989, through May 
31, 1990, the Department determined a dumping margin of 60.38 percent 
ad valorem for Pirelli;\10\ in the second review, covering the period 
June 1, 1990, through May 31, 1991, the dumping margin for Pirelli 
increased to 70.90 percent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured from Italy; Amendment of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 8295 (March 9, 1992).
    \11\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 30938 (July 13, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Singapore

    In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988, 
through June 30, 1998, the Department determined the dumping margin for 
Mitsuboshi Belting (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (``MBS''), a subsidiary of 
Mitsuboshi Belting Ltd. of Japan, and ``all others'', to be 31.73 
percent ad valorem.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or 
Uncured, from Singapore, 54 FR 15489 (April 18, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There have been two completed administrative reviews and one 
terminated review of this order. The Department determined a dumping 
margin of 31.73 percent ad valorem for MBS in the first review\13\ 
covering the period February 1, 1989, through May 31, 1990, and in the 
second review, covering the period June 1, 1990 through May 31, 
1991.\14\ A third review, covering the period June 1, 1991, through May 
31, 1992, was terminated before a preliminary determination was issued 
(58 FR 53707, October 18, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Singapore; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 41916 (September 14, 
1992).
    \14\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Singapore; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 29469 (July 2, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japan

    In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988, 
through June 30, 1998, the Department determined a dumping margin of 
93.16 percent ad valorem for Bando Chemical Industries (``Bando'') and 
``all others'' (54 FR 15485, April 18, 1989).
    There have been five administrative reviews of this order. In the 
first review, covering the period June 7, 1989, through May 31, 1990, 
the Department determined a dumping margin of 93.16 percent ad valorem 
for Bando, and 52.60 percent for Nitta Industries (``Nitta'') and 
Mitsuboshi Belting Limited (``MBL'').\15\ In the second administrative 
review, covering the period June 1, 1990, through May 31, 1991, we 
determined that the dumping margin for MBL was 93.16 percent.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 30018 (May 25, 1993).
    \16\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, 
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 44496 (August 23, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the third and fourth administrative reviews, covering the 
periods June 1, 1991, through May 31, 1992, and June 1, 1992, through 
May 31, 1993, respectively, the Department determined a dumping margin 
of 93.16 percent for MBL (59 FR 1373, January 10, 1994). The dumping 
margin continued at 93.16 for MBL in the fifth review, covering the 
period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994 (60 FR 39929, August 4, 
1995).
    At the request of Brecoflex Corporation (``Brecoflex''), the 
Department initiated a circumvention inquiry on October 18, 1993; 
however, the Department did not make a determination regarding the 
merits of the inquiry because it determined that Brecoflex lacked 
standing as a domestic producer of a like-product (56 FR 23693, May 6, 
1994).

Background

    On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping orders on industrial belts from Germany, Italy, Singapore, 
and Japan (64 FR 29261), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The 
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of 
Gates within the applicable deadline (June 16, 1998) specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations from all four 
countries. As the petitioner in the original investigations and a 
participant in each of the respective administrative reviews, Gates 
claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a 
U.S. producer of the domestic like product. Subsequently, we received 
Gates' complete substantive responses to the notice of initiation on 
July 1, 1999. Without a substantive response from respondent interested 
parties, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), 
determined to conduct expedited, 120-day reviews of these orders.
    In accordance with 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 
October 12, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset reviews of 
the antidumping duty orders on industrial belts from Germany, Italy, 
Singapore, and Japan are extraordinarily complicated and, therefore, 
the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final 
results of these reviews until not later than December 28, 1999, in 
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 55233 (October 12, 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 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 duty 
order, and

[[Page 73514]]

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, Gates' comments with respect to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin for each of the 
orders 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 significantly (see section II.A.3).
    In addition to consideration of 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 
reviews, 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.
    Gates argues that because manufacturers/exporters of industrial 
belts from Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan have continued to dump 
the subject merchandise covered by the 1989 orders and dumping margins 
are consistently very high, the Department should determine that 
revocation of the orders would likely lead to further dumping (see July 
1, 1999 Substantive Responses of Gates (Germany and Singapore at 6; 
Japan and Italy at 7)).
    With respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de 
minimis after the issuance of the order, Gates notes that German 
manufacturers/exporters continue to dump, albeit at reduced volumes, 
and continue to be subject to high margin rates of 100.60 percent (see 
July 1, 1999, Substantive Response of Gates at 8). Similarly, according 
the Gates, Italian, Singaporean and Japanese manufacturers/exporters 
have continued to dump since the issuance of the respective orders. 
Gates notes the high margin rates of 74.90 percent, 31.73 percent and 
93.16 percent for Italian, Singaporean, and Japanese manufacturers/
producers, respectively (see July 1, 1999, Substantive Responses of 
Gates (Italy at 9; Singapore at 8; and Japan at 10).
    With respect to whether import volumes of the subject merchandise 
declined significantly, Gates notes that, although the average volume 
of imports industrial belts from Germany, Japan and Italy decreased 
following the imposition of the orders, dumping has not been entirely 
eliminated (see July 1, 1999, Substantive responses of Gates (Germany 
at 9; Japan and Italy, respectively, at 8)).
    Finally, Gates asserts that dumping would likely become severe if 
the orders were revoked because the market for industrial belts is a 
mature market characterized by intense price competition (see July 1, 
1999, Substantive Responses of Gates (Germany and Singapore at 9; Italy 
at 10 and Japan at 11)). Moreover, given that Asia remains in a 
recession, the U.S. market is an attractive target for manufacturers/
exporters from Japan and Singapore (see July 1, 1999, Substantive 
Responses of Gates (Singapore at 9; Japan at 11)).
    In conclusion, Gates argues that, in each case, the Department 
should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue 
upon revocation of the orders because manufacturers/exporters have 
continued to import into the United States even as dumping margins 
remain very high.

Discussion

    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 
dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may 
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were 
removed. In these cases, dumping margins above de minimis continue to 
exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from all manufacturers/
exporters from the subject countries.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the 
orders. By examining U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, the Department 
finds that, consistent with import statistics provided by Gates, 
imports of the subject merchandise from Germany, Italy and Japan 
decreased following the issuance of the orders, from 1989 through 1995. 
During this period, average imports from Germany and Japan decreased 
approximately 95 percent during this period, average imports from Italy 
decreased approximately 30 percent; and imports from Singapore ceased 
altogether. In 1996, imports from all four countries increased and 
remained generally steady until 1998; however, imports from Germany, 
Japan, and Singapore were significantly lower than pre-order levels. In 
contrast, Italian imports from 1996 to 1998 exceeded pre-order levels 
by approximately 25 percent.
    Therefore, the Department finds that the existence of dumping 
margins after the issuance of the orders is highly probative of the 
likelihood of continuation of recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates for 
exports of the subject merchandise by all known manufacturers and 
exporters from Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan are above de 
minimus. Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of 
the orders, respondent interested parties have waived their right to 
participate in these reviews before the Department, 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 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

[[Page 73515]]

determinations (see section II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin).
    Gates asserts that the Department should provide to the Commission 
the company-specific margins and the ``all others'' rates determined in 
the original investigations of imports from Germany, Italy, Singapore, 
and Japan (see July 1, 1999, Substantive Responses of Gates (Germany 
and Singapore, respectively, at 10; Japan at 11; Italy at 12)) as the 
rates likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Specifically, Gates 
notes that, in the original investigation of subject imports from 
Germany, the Department determined a margin of 100.60 percent for 
Optibelt and ``all others.'' Subsequently, in the sole administrative 
review, the Department determined a rate of 100.60 percent for 
Volkmann. Therefore, they argue that the Department should provide to 
the Commission the original margin of 100.60 percent for Optibelt and 
``all others'' as determined in the investigation (see July 1, 1999, 
Substantive Response of Gates (Germany) at 11).
    For Italian manufacturers/exporters, gates asserts that the 74.90 
percent margin in the final determination and most recent review of the 
order on imports from Italy demonstrates the high probability of 
continued dumping were the order were revoked. Gates concludes, 
therefore, that the original rate should be applicable to Pirelli and 
``all others'' (see July 1, 1999, Substantive Response of Gates (Italy) 
at 12).
    For manufacturers/exporters from Singapore, Gates asserts that the 
Department should provide to the Commission the margin of 31.73 percent 
from the original investigation for MBS and ``all others'' (see July 1, 
1999, Substantive Response of Gates (Singapore) at 10). The Department 
also applied this rate to MBS in subsequent administrative reviews.
    Finally, for Japanese manufacturers/exporters, Gates notes that the 
original margin of 93.16 percent continued in the administrative 
reviews of the order on imports from Japan. Therefore, Gates argues, a 
rate of 93.16 percent should be applicable to Bando and all other 
companies not specifically investigated in the investigation (see July 
1, 1999, Substantive Response of Gates at 11).
    The Department agrees with Gates' arguments concerning the choice 
of margins to report to the Commission for each of the countries. As 
noted in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the rates from the original 
investigation are the only rates that reflect the behavior of exporters 
without the discipline of the order. In these reviews, we find no 
reason to deviate from our stated policy. Therefore, consistent with 
section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department finds that 
the original rates are probative of the behavior of manufacturers/
exporters from Germany, Italy, Singapore and Japan were the orders 
revoked. As such, 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 Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
             Country and manufacturer /exporter                (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany:
    Optibelt Corporation....................................      100.60
    All Others..............................................      100.60
Italy:
    Pirelli.................................................       74.90
    All Others..............................................       74.90
Singapore:
    Mitsuboshi Belting (Singapore) Pte. Lte.................       31.73
    All Others..............................................       31.73
Japan:
    Bando...................................................       93.16
    All Others..............................................       93.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 23, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-33976 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M