[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 753-758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-284]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-810]


Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Mechanical Transfer 
Presses From Japan

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: Mechanical 
transfer presses from Japan.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on mechanical transfer presses (``MTPs'') from Japan pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the

[[Page 754]]

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 from respondent interested parties, the 
Department determined to conduct an expedited sunset review. However, 
upon reconsideration of our initial adequacy determination, the 
Department determines that it is appropriate in this case to conduct a 
full review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily 
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 Preliminary 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 DATE: January 6, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

    This review is being 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 covered by this order is MTPs from Japan. The term 
``mechanical transfer press'' refers to automatic metal-forming machine 
tools with multiple die stations in which the workpiece is moved from 
station to station by a transfer mechanism designed as an integral part 
of the press and synchronized with the press action, whether imported 
as machines or parts suitable for use solely or principally with these 
machines. These presses may be assembled or unassembled. Spare and 
replacement parts are outside the scope of the order (see Notice of 
Scope Rulings, 57 FR 19602 (May 7, 1992)). A destack sheet feeder 
designed to be used with a mechanical transfer press is an accessory 
and, therefore, is not within the scope of the order (see Notice of 
Scope Rulings, 57 FR 32973 (July 24, 1992)). The FMX cold forging press 
is within the scope of the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 59 FR 
8910 (February 24, 1994)). Finally, certain mechanical transfer press 
parts exported from Japan are outside the scope of the order (see 
Notice of Scope Rulings, 62 FR 9176 (February 28, 1997)). This 
merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
(``HTS'') item numbers 8462.99.0035 and 8466.94.5040. The HTS item 
numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written 
description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    On January 4, 1990, the Department issued a final determination of 
sales at less than fair value on imports of MTPs from 
Japan.1 On February 16, 1990, the antidumping duty order on 
the subject merchandise was published in the Federal 
Register.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See MTPs From Japan; Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, 55 FR 335 (January 4, 1990).
    \2\ See MTPs From Japan; Antidumping Duty Order, 55 FR 5642 
(February 16, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the antidumping duty order the Department established an 
estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 15.16 percent for Komatsu 
Ltd, 7.49 percent for Aida Engineering, Ltd. (``Aida''), and an ``all 
others'' rate of 14.51 percent. Id. There have been six administrative 
reviews of this order, and no investigations of duty absorption by the 
Department.
    The order remains in effect for all producers and exporters of MTPs 
from Japan, except for Aida for which the Department revoked the 
antidumping duty order.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MTPs From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Order in Part, 63 FR 37331 (July 10, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on MTPs 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 Verson Division of Allied Products Corporation 
(``Verson''), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) 
of the Sunset Regulations. We received a complete substantive response 
on July 1, 1999 from Verson, within the deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Verson claimed interested 
party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. manufacturer 
of a domestic like product and stated it was the petitioner in the 
original investigation.
    We received complete substantive responses from respondent 
interested parties, Komatsu, Ltd. (``Komatsu''), Hitachi Zosen 
Corporation (``HZ'') and Fukui Machinery Co., (``Fukui'') (collectively 
``the respondents''). Komatsu, HZ, and Fukui claimed interested party 
status as manufacturers and exporters of MTPs under section 771(9)(A) 
of the Act. Komatsu maintains that it was a respondent interested party 
in the original investigation and has participated in two of six 
subsequent administrative reviews conducted by the Department. Komatsu 
further notes that it is participating in the 1998-1999 administrative 
review that the Department is currently conducting. HZ and Fukui state 
that they did not participate in the original investigation; however, 
HZ states that it has participated in four of six subsequent 
administrative reviews and Fukui has participated in one administrative 
review.
    On July 12, 1999, we received comments from Verson requesting that 
the Department determine that the individual respondent interested 
party responses to the notice of initiation are inadequate with regard 
to respondent interested parties as a whole. Verson argued, therefore, 
that an expedited review was appropriate. The regulations provide, at 
section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), that the Secretary normally will conclude 
that respondent interested parties have provided adequate response to a 
notice of initiation where it receives complete substantive responses 
from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 
50 percent, on a volume basis (or value basis, if appropriate) of the 
total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the 
five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of 
initiation. In their substantive responses, the respondents provided 
the Department statistics on export volume and value of MTPs for the 
time period 1994 through 1998. After examining the statistical 
information, the Department concluded that it did not receive adequate 
response to the notice of initiation from respondent interested 
parties. As a result, pursuant to the regulations, on July 21, 1999, 
the Department determined to conduct an expedited sunset review of this 
order 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C).

[[Page 755]]

    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). Therefore, on October 12, 1999 , the Department determined that 
the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on MTPs from Japan is 
extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of this review until not later than December 28, 
1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 5523 (October 12, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adequacy

    As noted above, on July 21, 1999, the Department determined that, 
during the five-year period from 1994 to 1998, the average annual 
percentage of the respondents' exports of MPTs to the United States 
with respect to the total subject merchandise exports to the United 
States falls significantly below the 50 percent threshold that the 
Department normally will consider to be an adequate foreign response. 
In light of the fact that, on July 10, 1998, the order was revoked with 
respect to Aida, our reliance on total imports during that time 
resulted in an underestimation of the percent of exports accounted for 
by respondent interested parties. Although, absent Aida-specific export 
statistics, we are unable to determine the exact percentage of subject 
merchandise exports accounted for by respondent interested parties, 
given Aida's historic participation in administrative reviews, 
including our finding that Aida had exported in commercial quantities 
over a three consecutive year period, we determine that the respondent 
interested parties account for a significantly greater percent of 
exports of subject merchandise than we had originally estimated and, 
therefore, that respondent interested parties may account for more than 
the 50 percent threshold that the Department applies in its adequacy 
determinations. Additionally, interested parties have raised 
significant issues in their submissions with respect to the significant 
decline in import volumes and the unique nature of the market such that 
the Department believes it is appropriate to conduct a full review and 
allow submission of additional data.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is 
conducting 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 preliminary determinations concerning continuation 
or recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, interested parties 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 its substantive response, Verson argues that revocation of the 
antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping by Japanese producers and exporters of MTPs. Verson 
maintains that the history of this order (i.e., the administrative 
review history) demonstrates that since the issuance of the order, 
respondents have not been able, on a continuous basis, to sell MTPs in 
the United States at fair value.
    Verson argues that section 752(c)(1) of the Act instructs the 
Department to consider not only the weighted-average dumping margins 
determined in the original investigation and subsequent reviews but 
also the volume of imports for the period before and the period after 
the issuance of the order. Verson contends that since the issuance of 
the order, only one company (Aida) has made sales to the U.S. at not 
less than fair value over a consecutive three year period. Verson 
asserts that although since the issuance of the order, imports of MTPs 
from Japan have remained relatively stable, during many of the 
administrative reviews conducted by the Department, several Japanese 
producers have reported ``no sales.'' In conclusion, Verson argues that 
a decline in import volume after the issuance of the order coupled with 
the continuation of dumping margins above de minimis is probative of 
the fact that producers and exporters of MTPs from Japan will continue 
to dump if the order is revoked. For these reasons, Verson maintains 
that the Department should determine that there is a likelihood of the 
continuation or recurrence of dumping of MTPs from Japan if the order 
is revoked.
    In their substantive responses, the respondent interested parties 
argue that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to the 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. Komatsu argues that, with the 
exception of small dumping margins found in early reviews of Aida (a 
company for which the order has subsequently been revoked), in every 
single review the Department has found no dumping. Further, according 
to Komatsu, it is unlikely that this situation will change if the order 
is revoked. Komatsu argues that the original dumping finding was the 
result of a unique historical situation. Specifically, Komatsu argues 
that the mid-1980s saw unprecedented boom in demand for MTPs, with U.S. 
automakers retooling to compete with Japanese automakers and with 
Japanese automakers establishing transplant manufacturing operations in 
the United States. Komatsu asserts that once this process was completed 
in the late 1980s, there was a sharp drop in demand and since that 
time, the U.S. market for MTPs has been characterized by relatively few 
sales either for replacement of existing machines, or to supply the 
relatively few new automobile manufacturing plants that

[[Page 756]]

have been built. Further, Komatsu asserts that as the MTP market has 
matured to more of a replacement market, a new dynamic has been created 
in which the number of bidders considered for each purchase has been 
reduced. This fundamental change in the nature of competition, Komatsu 
argues, has reduced the degree of competition and led to findings by 
the Department in all of its administrative reviews that the Japanese 
manufacturers subject to the order have not engaged in dumping.
    HZ and Fukui note that in making determinations of likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping, the statute requires the 
Department to 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. However, citing to the SAA, 
at 890, they assert that the Department recognizes that observed 
patterns regarding dumping margins and import volumes are not 
necessarily indicative of the likelihood of dumping. Further, HZ and 
Fukui assert that, in this case, good cause exists sufficient to 
warrant that the Department consider factors other than import volume 
in determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order is 
likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of sales at less than 
normal value. Citing to the Commission's final report in the original 
investigation, HZ and Fukui argue that MTPs are big-ticket, made-to-
order products, with relatively low and irregular sales volumes, and 
with peak sales occurring as the presses reach the end of their useful 
life of nearly 20 years. Similar to the arguments of Komatsu, HZ and 
Fukui argue that the late 1980s witnessed an unexpected increase in 
U.S. demand for MTPs which resulted in an increase in the importation 
of foreign made presses, including presses from Italy, the United 
Kingdom, and Japan. Further, as demand slackened in the late 1980s and 
early 1990s, so too did imports, with imports from foreign countries 
generally, and Japan in particular, declining significantly. This 
trough in the business cycle has lasted throughout the 1990s and, HZ 
and Fukui assert that it is expected to continue for another five to 
eight years. HZ and Fukui argue that, accordingly, any comparison 
between shipments prior to the imposition of the order and following 
the imposition of the order would be meaningless because the import 
levels from all producers declined, whether they were found to be 
dumping or not.
    HZ and Fukui go on to assert that the extreme cyclical nature of 
the MTP market constitutes ``good cause'' for the Department to 
consider price, cost, market, and other economic factors in determining 
whether revocation of the order is likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. An examination of those factors, HZ and Fukui 
argue, will reveal that revocation of the order will not likely lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping.
    We did not receive rebuttal from Verson or Komatsu. In their 
rebuttal comments, HZ and Fukui 5 reiterate their arguments 
that there is no likelihood that revocation of the order will result in 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. Again, HZ and Fukui assert that 
comparison of the pre- and post-order export volumes does not provide a 
valid measure of likelihood of dumping. They argue that the presumption 
that a post-order decline in shipment volumes indicates the foreign 
producer's inability to move the pre- order volumes without dumping 
does not apply to big-ticket items such as MTPs given that MTPs are 
unique pieces of machinery always are manufactured to exacting customer 
specifications, with extremely long useful lives, and sporadic sales. 
Additionally, citing to the July 1, 1999, substantive response of 
Verson, at page 10, they assert that Verson acknowledges that the lack 
of sales following the imposition of the order is closely correlated to 
the nature of the marketplace which is characterized by a very limited 
number of high value transactions. HZ and Fukui further assert that, in 
the original investigation, Verson argued that it was the unique nature 
of the market, with sporadic sales, that caused injury to the domestic 
industry. Therefore, Verson cannot now assert that respondents' 
sporadic sales following the imposition of the order demonstrate an 
inability to sell in the United States at fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In their rebuttal comments, HZ and Fukui announced a name 
change for Fukui, pursuant to a resolution of the shareholders. 
Fukui was formerly known as ``Fukui Machinery Co., Ltd.'' The name 
change took effect on July 1, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HZ and Fukui also take issue with Verson's argument that only one 
Japanese respondent has made sales for three years in a row without 
dumping. HZ and Fukui assert that the entire sales process from initial 
bid to delivery can take in excess of two years and, as a result, sales 
are infrequent and rarely occur in two consecutive years, let alone 
three. Further, HZ and Fukui assert that because the MTPs manufactured 
by Aida have more diverse applications and tend to be smaller than 
those manufactured by other Japanese respondents, these sales occur 
more frequently, thus enabling Aida to take advantage of the 
Department's policy allowing for revocation of the order for sales made 
three years in a row without dumping. In summary, HZ and Fukui argue 
that because of the unique nature of the market for MTPs, the 
Department's analysis of pre- and post-order import levels will not 
provide a reliable indicator of the likelihood of HZ and Fukui's 
resumption of dumping.
    As noted above, in determining whether revocation of an order is 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Department 
considers the margins determined in the investigation and subsequent 
administrative reviews and the volume of imports for the period before 
and the period after the issuance of the order. In the original 
investigation, the Department estimated the margin of dumping for 
Komatsu at 15.16 percent, for Aida at 7.49 percent, and for ``all 
others'' at 14.51 percent. Although Aida was found to be dumping in the 
second and third administrative review, at rates of 0.87 percent and 
3.51 percent, respectively, we subsequently revoked the order with 
respect to Aida (63 FR 37311 (July 11, 1998)) based on our 
determination that Aida subsequently made sales to the United States 
for three consecutive years without dumping.
    Verson argues that margins above de minimis continue to exist. 
However, other than the post-investigation margins found for sales by 
Aida, for which the order has been revoked, the Department has found 
only zero margins for all of the Japanese respondents for which an 
administrative review has been conducted. With the exception of 
possible imports subject to the ``all others'' rate, dumping by the 
respondents Komatsu, HZ, and Fukui (as well as Ishikawajima-Harima 
Heavy Industry) has been eliminated since the issuance of the order. 
Our review of the public versions of Customs' annual reports to 
Congress on its administration of the antidumping and countervailing 
duty statutes indicates that no bonds have been posted on entries 
subject to this order since October 1, 1992. Therefore, the existence 
of an above de minimis all others rate is not controlling in this 
sunset review.
    Verson also argues that none of the Japanese producers/exporters 
that remain subject to the order have made sales above fair value for a 
period of three consecutive years. However, three consecutive years of 
sales above fair value is the revocation standard in

[[Page 757]]

administrative reviews conducted under section 351.222 of the 
regulations and is not controlling in this sunset review.
    As noted in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department normally 
will determine that revocation of an order is likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where dumping was eliminated 
after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject 
merchandise declined significantly. In their substantive and rebuttal 
comments, the respondents argue that, given the nature of the MTP 
market, the Department's reliance on the decrease between pre- and 
post-order export volumes as a basis for a determination that dumping 
would be likely to continue or recur would be inappropriate in this 
case. Although Verson did not provide any rebuttal to these arguments, 
respondents have not supported their assertions by placing facts or 
some sort of documentary evidence on the record. In essence, the 
respondents are claiming that the U.S. market for MTPs has shrunk 
without providing any support for this claim. While we agree with 
respondents that the Department has the discretion to deviate from its 
stated policies where the facts warrant such deviation, respondents 
have not provided any evidence to support their claims.
    While the respondents provided argument that would suggest an 
explanation for the significant decrease in imports after the 
imposition of the order, given the absence of evidence with respect to 
pre- and post-order market share, we are not persuaded at this point 
that it is appropriate to deviate from our stated policy in this case. 
However, as indicated below, the Department is providing an opportunity 
for interested parties who have filed substantive responses in this 
review to provide additional factual evidence and arguments on this 
issue.
    In sum, although we have determined that the level of respondents 
participation warrants a full review, we note the existence of 
additional producers/exporters that have waived their right to 
participate in this review, which under the statute constitutes grounds 
for finding likelihood (See section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act). 
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that revocation of the order 
would likely result in continuation or recurrence of dumping.

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.)
    As stated in the ``History of the Order'' section of this notice, 
the Department published a weighted-average dumping margin in the 
original investigation of 15.16 percent for Komatsu Ltd, 7.49 percent 
for Aida Engineering, Ltd., and of 14.51 percent for ``all others.''
    In its substantive response, Verson cites to the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin and asserts that the Department makes clear that the magnitude 
of the margin of dumping in most cases is to be the company-specific 
rate from the original investigation, as that margin best reflects the 
behavior of the respondents free of the constraints of an antidumping 
duty order. Verson argues that, accordingly, the Department should 
report to the Commission the rates for Komatsu and ``all others'' from 
the original investigation as the magnitude of the margin likely to 
prevail if the antidumping duty order is revoked.
    In their substantive responses, the respondents argue that a zero 
rate will likely prevail if the order on MTPs is revoked. Komatsu 
argues that, throughout the history of this order, the Department has 
consistently found no dumping by Komatsu and the other Japanese 
exporters. Therefore, the dumping margin for Komatsu and others will be 
zero should the order be revoked.
    HZ and Fukui assert that the Department may, and in this case 
should, provide the Commission with a margin other than from the 
original investigation. In support of their argument that the 
Department select a margin other than the ``all others'' rate from the 
original investigation as representative of the magnitude of the margin 
likely to prevail with respect to their exports, HZ and Fukui argue 
that the ``all others'' rate from the investigation represents the 
weighted-average of the two companies subject to the original 
investigation and does not include HZ and Fukui sales. Furthermore, HZ 
and Fukui contend that they have received a zero margin in all their 
administrative reviews conducted by the Department. In conclusion, they 
argue that the ``all others'' rate of 14.51 percent is not 
representative of the rate likely to prevail if the order is revoked.
    We agree with HZ and Fukui that the Department has the discretion 
to report a company-specific margin for a company that did not 
participate in the original investigation where, as in the Final 
Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Steel Wire Rope From the Republic 
of Korea, 64 FR 42166 (August 9, 1999), where we deviated from our 
policy with respect to the use of the ``all others'' rate for Kumho, a 
company not subject to the original investigation. However, in that 
review, a case that did not involve declining import volumes, we noted 
that although Kumho did not participate in the Department's original 
investigation, Kumho had participated in each of the administrative 
reviews and maintained a zero or de minimis margin over the life of the 
order. While we do not believe that participation in each review is 
necessary, as noted below, we preliminarily determine that use of a 
more recently calculated rate is not appropriate in this review.
    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department noted that it may, in 
response to an argument from an interested party, provide the 
Commission a more recently calculated rate for a particular company 
where, for that particular company, dumping margins declined or dumping 
was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import volumes 
remained steady or increased. Further, in analyzing import volumes, the 
Department normally will consider the company's relative market share, 
with such information to be provided by the parties. In this review, 
the respondents have made arguments that post-order export volumes, 
although significantly decreased from pre-order import volumes, 
nonetheless provide sufficient support for a determination that more 
recently calculated margins are probative of their behavior without the 
discipline of the order. For the reasons stated above, we preliminarily 
determine that the respondent interested parties' assertions have not 
been supported by any evidence. specifically, in this review,the 
Department believes it more appropriate to base a determination with 
respect to the use of a more recently calculated margin on evidence 
regarding market share; such evidence currently is not on the record. 
Therefore, absent evidence that the respondents have maintained or

[[Page 758]]

increased market share while eliminating dumping, we preliminarily 
determine that the margins from the original investigation are 
probative of the behavior of exporter without the discipline of the 
order.
    Based on the above analysis, we preliminarily intend to report to 
the Commission the margins contained in the Preliminary Results of 
Review of this notice.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Komatsu, Ltd. (Komatsu)....................................        15.16
Aida Engineering, Ltd......................................        (\1\)
All Others.................................................       14.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Revoked.

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested will be held on February 16, 2000, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no 
later than February 7, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(i). We invite interested parties to submit arguments and, 
as an exception to our normal practice, factual evidence related to the 
issues identified in these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs, which 
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than February 14, 2000. Rebuttal briefs also may contain factual 
evidence to rebut, clarify, or correct factual evidence submitted in 
other parties' case briefs. The Department will issue a notice of final 
results of this sunset review no later than April 26, 2000.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: December 28, 1999.
Holly Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-284 Filed 1-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P