Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices 25705

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–810]

Final Results of Full Sunset Review:

Mechanical Transfer Presses From

Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of full

sunset review: Mechanical transfer

presses from Japan.

SUMMARY: On January 6, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register (65 FR 753) the preliminary

results of the full sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on mechanical

transfer presses from Japan (‘‘MTP’’)

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’).

We provided interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results and received

comments filed on behalf of domestic

and respondent interested parties. 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: May 3, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha V. Douthit or Carole A. Showers,

Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th St. & Constitution, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–5050 or (202) 482-3217,

respectively.

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 Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Background

On January 6, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset

Review: Mechanical Transfer Presses

from Japan (65 FR 753). In our

preliminary results, we found that

revocation of the antidumping duty

order on MTPs from Japan would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’).

On February 15, 2000 we received

case briefs on behalf of the domestic

interested parties, Verson Division of

Allied Products, Inc. (‘‘Verson’’), and

the respondent interested parties,

Komatsu Ltd, and Komatsu American

Industries LLC (‘‘Komatsu’’), and

Hitachi Zosen Corporation and Hitachi

Zosen Fukui Corporation (‘‘HZFukui’’)

(collectively ‘‘the respondents’’), within

the deadline specified in 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i). On February 22, 2000,

within the deadline specified in 19 CFR

351.309(d)(1), the Department received

rebuttal comments from the domestic

and the respondent interested parties.

The Department did not receive request

for a public hearing. We have addressed

the comments below.

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.

The Department published in the

Federal Register several Notices of

Scope Rulings with respect to MTPs

from Japan and determined that, (1)

spare and replacement parts are outside

the scope of the order (see Notice of

Scope Rulings, 57 FR 19602 (May 7,

1992)), (2) 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)), (3) the FMX

cold forging press is within the scope of

the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings,

59 FR 8910 (February 24, 1994)), and (5)

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 of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers 8462.99.0035

and 8466.94.5040. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this sunset

review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and

Decision Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision

Memo’’) from Jeffrey A. May, Director,

Office of Policy, Import Administration,

to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

dated April 26, 2000, which is hereby

adopted by this notice. The issues

discussed in the attached Decision

Memo include the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and the magnitude of the margin likely

to prevail were the order revoked.

Parties can find a complete discussion

of all issues raised in this review and

the corresponding recommendations in

this public memorandum which is on

file in the Central Records Unit, room

B–099, of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import—admin/records/frn. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of 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. As such, the Department will

report to the Commission the companyspecific and ‘‘all other’’ rates from the

original investigation listed below.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Komatsu ....................................... 15.16

Aida Engineering, Ltd ................... Revoked

All Others ...................................... 14.51

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 or destruction of

APO material 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.

We are issuing and publishing this

determination and notice in accordance

25706 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 3, 2000 / Notices

with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1)

of the Act.

Dated: April 26, 2000.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–10926 Filed 5–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–856]

Synthetic Indigo From the People’s

Republic of China; Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final determination of

sales at less than fair value.

SUMMARY: On December 14, 1999, the

Department of Commerce published its

preliminary determination of sales at

less than fair value of synthetic indigo

from the People’s Republic of China.

The period of investigation is October 1,

1998, through March 31, 1999.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes in the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final determination

differs from the preliminary

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the

investigated companies are listed below

in the section entitled ‘‘Final

Determination of Investigation.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Dinah

McDougall, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4136 or (202) 482–3773,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations refer to 19

CFR Part 351 (April 1999).

Background

On December 14, 1999, the

Department published the Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement

of Final Determination: Synthetic Indigo

from the People’s Republic of China

(‘‘PRC’’) (64 FR 69723) (‘‘Preliminary

Determination’’). The period of

investigation is October 1, 1998 through

March 31, 1999. We invited parties to

comment on our preliminary

determination of the investigation. The

Department has conducted this

investigation in accordance with section

731 of the Act.

Verification of the responses to the

Department’s sales and factors of

production questionnaires took place in

January 2000 (see the ‘‘Verification’’

section below).

The petitioners, Buffalo Color

Corporation and the United

Steelworkers of America, AFL–CIO/

CLC, and the respondents, the China

Chamber of Commerce of Metals,

Minerals and Chemicals, and its

respondent member firms, filed case

and rebuttal briefs on March 23 and 28,

2000, respectively.

Scope of Investigation

The products subject to this

investigation are the deep blue synthetic

vat dye known as synthetic indigo and

those of its derivatives designated

commercially as ‘‘Vat Blue 1.’’ Included

are Vat Blue 1 (synthetic indigo), Color

Index No. 73000, and its derivatives,

pre-reduced indigo or indigo white

(Color Index No. 73001) and solubilized

indigo (Color Index No. 73002). The

subject merchandise may be sold in any

form (e.g., powder, granular, paste,

liquid, or solution) and in any strength.

Synthetic indigo and its derivatives

subject to this investigation are

currently classifiable under subheadings

3204.15.10.00, 3204.15.40.00 or

3204.15.80.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the

Act, we verified the information

submitted by the respondents for use in

our final determination. We used

standard verification procedures,

including examination of relevant

accounting and production records, as

well as original source documents

provided by the respondents.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

investigation are addressed in the

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from

Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Import Administration, to

Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

dated April 27, 2000, which is hereby

adopted by this notice. A list of the

issues which parties have raised and to

which we have responded, all of which

are in the Decision Memorandum, is

attached to this notice as an Appendix.

Parties can find a complete discussion

of all issues raised in this investigation

and the corresponding

recommendations in this public

memorandum which is on file in the

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of

the Department. In addition, a complete

version of the Decision Memorandum

can be accessed directly on the Web at:

www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/

records/frn/. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Separate Rates

All responding exporting entities have

requested separate, company-specific

antidumping duty rates. In the

Preliminary Determination we

determined that, based on the

information contained in the

questionnaire responses, the mandatory

respondents, Wonderful Chemical

Industrial Ltd. (‘‘Wonderful’’) and its

affiliate Jiangsu Taifeng Chemical

Industry Co. (‘‘Jiangsu Taifeng’’), and

Tianjin Hongfa Group Co. (‘‘Tianjin

Hongfa’’), had met the de jure and de

facto criteria for the application of

separate antidumping rates. See

Preliminary Determination, 64 FR at

69725–6. However, during the course of

verification, the Department was unable

to completely verify the reported

separate rates information for Tianjin

Hongfa, and therefore, has determined

that Tianjin Hongfa is not eligible to

receive a separate rate. Accordingly, we

have assigned Tianjin Hongfa the PRCwide rate, as discussed in the ‘‘PRCWide Rate’’ section below. For a

discussion of our determination with

respect to separate rates and the

application of the PRC-wide rate, see the

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section of the Decision

Memorandum, which is available in B–

099 and on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn/.