[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5312-5315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-804]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Sparklers From the 
People's Republic of China

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

[[Page 5313]]


ACTION:  Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Sparklers 
from the People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY:  On July 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on sparklers from the People's Republic of China (64 FR 35588) 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  February 3, 2000.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   

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'') 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 products covered by this order are sparklers from the People's 
Republic of China (``PRC''). Sparklers are fireworks each comprising a 
cut-to-length wire, one end of which is coated with a chemical mix that 
emits bright sparks while burning. Sparklers are currently classified 
under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') of the United States 
subheading 3604.10.00. The HTS subheading is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    The Department determined that Fritz Companies, Inc.'s 14 inch 
Morning Glory's are outside the scope of the order. See Notice of Scope 
Rulings, 60 FR 36782 (July 18, 1995).

History of the Order

    On May 6, 1991, the Department issued a final determination of 
sales at less than fair value on imports of sparklers from the PRC (56 
FR 20588). In the final determination of sales at less than fair value 
the Department assigned the following dumping margins: Gaungxi Native 
Produce Import & Export Corporation (``Gaungxi'')--1.64 percent, Hunan 
Provincial F&F Import & Export (Holding) Corporation (``Hunan'')--93.54 
percent, and Jiangxi Native Produce Import & Export Corporation 
(``Jiangxi'')--65.78 percent, and ``all others''--75.88 percent. The 
antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise was published in the 
Federal Register (56 FR 27946) on June 18, 1991. On July 29, 1993, the 
Department published the amendment to the final determination of sales 
at less than fair value and antidumping duty order in accordance with 
decision upon remand, in which the Department adjusted the margins for 
Guangxi--41.75 percent, Jiangxi--93.54 percent, and all others--93.54 
percent (58 FR 40624).
    There have been three administrative reviews of this order \1\ and 
no investigations of duty absorption. The antidumping duty order 
remains in effect for all producers and exporters of sparklers from the 
PRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Sparklers from the People's Republic of China; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 16605 
(March 31, 1995), Sparklers from the People's Republic of China; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 54335 
(October 23, 1995), and Sparklers from the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 
FR 39630 (July 30, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on sparklers from the PRC pursuant to section 
751(c) of the Act (64 FR 35588). On July 13, 1999 we received a Notice 
of Intent to Participate on behalf of Diamond Sparklers Company 
(``Diamond'') within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) 
of the Sunset Regulations. We received a complete substantive response 
from Diamond on July 30, 1999, within the deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Diamond claimed interested 
party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. producer of a 
domestic like product. Diamond was a 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 Sec. 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)) we determined to 
conduct an expedited sunset review of this order.
    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 November 16, 1999, the Department determined that 
the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on sparklers from the 
PRC is extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for 
completion of the final results of this review until not later than 
January 27, 2000, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act 
(see 64 FR 62167).

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, Diamond'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''),

[[Page 5314]]

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 (April 16, 1998 (63 FR 
18871). 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.
    With respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de 
minimis after the issuance of the order, Diamond argues that over the 
history of this order the Department has imposed a 93.54 percent 
dumping margin on all sparklers from the PRC. Dumping continued after 
the issuance of the order, and continues to the present day. Diamond 
therefore argues that under the Department's own standard, this order 
cannot be revoked. Citing to the Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin, 
Diamond maintains that if companies continue to dump with the 
discipline of an order in place, it is reasonable to assume that 
dumping would continue if the discipline were removed.
    With respect to import volumes of the subject merchandise, Diamond 
states that sparklers enter the U.S. under a single tariff code with 
other fireworks and, therefore, statistical data on sparklers alone is 
not available. However, Diamond provided data from the ITC's final 
determination (based on questionnaire responses) that illustrate a 
substantial increase of imports prior to the antidumping duty order. 
See Diamond's July 30, 1999, Substantive Response at 5.
    Finally, Diamond concludes that because a dumping margin of 93.54 
percent continues to exist, import volumes are increasing, and 
exporters and producers of the subject merchandise continue to 
undersell the subject merchandise in the United States, the Department 
should determine that there is likelihood of the continuation of 
dumping of sparklers from the PRC if the order were revoked. See 
Diamond's July 30, 1999, Substantive Response at 5).
    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. After examining published findings with respect to the 
weighted-average dumping margins in previous administrative reviews,\2\ 
we determined that Chinese manufacturers/exporters continued to dump 
the subject merchandise after the issuance of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Footnote 1. In each administrative reviews the 
Department found dumping margins of 93.54 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information available from Customs in its annual reports 
to Congress on the administration of the antidumping and countervailing 
duty statutes (available on the Department's sunset web site) annual 
import values have fluctuated between fiscal years 1993 and 1998.
    We agree with Diamond that dumping above de minimis rates continued 
to exist in this case. Given that dumping above de minimis continued, 
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 sparklers from the PRC 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.)
    With respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if 
the order were revoked, Diamond urges the Department to reject the 
margins from the original investigation, and to select instead 93.54 
percent the dumping margin from the administrative reviews. Diamond 
bases its argument on the respondents' failure to either request or 
participate in administrative reviews since the issuance of the order.
    As noted above, consistent with the SAA and House Report, the 
Department normally 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, we stated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin that where a 
company chooses to increase dumping in order to maintain or increase 
market share, an increasing margin may be more representative of a 
company's behavior in the absence of the order. In this case, however, 
Diamond has merely asserted that a more recent rate is appropriate 
based on respondents failure to request or participate in an 
administrative review. Therefore, we disagree with Diamond on selecting 
93.54 percent for all producers and exporters as the margin likely to 
continue if the order is revoked.
    Rather, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin we find that the 
margins from the original investigation are probative of the behavior 
of exporters of sparklers without the discipline of the order and we 
will report to the Commission the margins contained in the Final 
Results of Review section 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.

[[Page 5315]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaungxi Native Produce Import & Export Corporation, Behai          41.75
 Fireworks and Firecrackers Branch.........................
Hunan Provincial Firecrackers & Fireworks Import & Export          93.54
 (Holding) Corporation.....................................
Jiangxi Native Produce Import & Export Corporation                 93.54
 Guangzhou Fireworks Company...............................
All others.................................................        93.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: January 27, 2000.
Holly Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2294 Filed 2-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P