[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5584-5587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2591]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-403-801]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Fresh and Chilled 
Atlantic Salmon From Norway

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

ACTION:  Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Fresh and 
Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway.

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

SUMMARY:  On July 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department``) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway (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 comments filed on behalf of domestic interested parties, 
and inadequate response (in this case, no response) from respondent 
interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited 
(120 day) 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.

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-
1930 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

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 product covered by this order is the species Atlantic salmon 
(Salmon Salar) marketed as specified herein; the order excludes all 
other species of salmon: Danube salmon, Chinook (also called ``king'' 
or ``quinnat''), Coho (``silver''), Sockeye (``redfish'' or 
``blueback''), Humpback (``pink'') and Chum (``dog''). Atlantic salmon 
is a whole or nearly-whole fish, typically (but not necessarily) 
marketed gutted, and cleaned, with the head on. The subject merchandise 
is typically packed in fresh-water ice (``chilled''). Excluded from the 
subject merchandise are fillets, steaks and other cuts of Atlantic 
salmon. Also excluded are frozen, canned, smoked or otherwise processed 
Atlantic salmon. Atlantic salmon was classifiable under item number 
110.2045 of the

[[Page 5585]]

Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (``TSUSA''). Prior to 
January 1, 1990, Atlantic salmon was provided for under item numbers 
0302.0060.8 and 0302.12.0065.3 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS'') (56 FR 7678, February 25, 1991). Currently, 
it is provided for under HTSUS item number 0302.12.00.02.09. The 
subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes. 
The written description remains dispositive.
    There have been no scope rulings for the subject order. There was 
one changed circumstances determination in which the Department 
affirmed that Kinn Salmon AS was the successor-in-interest to Skaarfish 
Group A/S.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final 
Results of Changed Circumstance Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 64 FR 9979 (March 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of the Order

    In the February 25, 1991, final determination in the antidumping 
duty investigation, covering the period September 1, 1989, through 
February 28, 1990, the Department determined the following weighted-
average dumping margins for respondent companies (56 FR 7661):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmonor A/S...................................................    18.39
Sea Star International A/S.....................................    24.61
Skaarfish Mowi A/S.............................................    15.65
Fremstad Group A/S.............................................    21.51
Domstein and Co................................................    31.81
Saga A/S.......................................................    26.55
Chr. Bjelland Seafoods A/S.....................................    19.96
Hallvard Leroy A/S.............................................    31.81
All others.....................................................    23.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the April 12, 1991, issuance of the antidumping duty order, 
the Department has completed four administrative reviews on imports of 
the subject merchandise from Norway (56 FR 14920). In the first 
administrative review, covering the period October 3, 1990, through 
March 31, 1992, Skaarfish A/S (``Skaarfish'') and ``all others'' were 
assigned margins of 2.15 percent and 23.80 percent, respectively.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 37912 (July 
14, 1993), and Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60 
FR 11070 (March 1, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second administrative review, conducted at the request of the 
Coalition for Fair Atlantic Salmon Trade, covered 85 exporters during 
the period April 1, 1992, through March 31, 1993, and the Department 
found that 31 of the 85 reviewed firms did not ship subject merchandise 
during the period of review (``POR''). Of those 31 firms, 28 had not 
been previously reviewed, and the Department assigned to them the 
original ``all others'' rate of 23.80 percent. The Department assigned 
the remaining three non-shipper respondents--Domstein Salmon A/S, 
Hallvard Leroy A/S and Saga A/S--their rates from the original 
investigation. The 52 respondent companies that failed to respond were 
assigned a margin of 31.91 percent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 12242 
(March 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the third administrative review, covering the period April 1, 
1993, through March 31, 1994, where the Department reviewed 24 
exporters, the dumping margin changed for two exporters, Skaarfish and 
Norwegian Salmon A/S (``Norwegian Salmon''), to 2.28 percent and 13.88 
percent, respectively.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 65522 
(December 13, 1996); and Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From 
Norway; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 62 FR 44255 (August 20, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the fourth administrative review, covering the period April 1, 
1997, through March 31, 1998, the Department reviewed one exporter, 
Nornir Group A/S, to which it assigned a margin of 31.81 percent.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 17616 
(April 12, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Department completed one new shipper review, 
covering Nordic Group A/L (``Nordic''), from May 1, 1995, through 
October 31, 1995.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway; Final 
results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
1430 (January 10, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway 
(64 FR 35588), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department 
received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of domestic 
interested parties within the deadline (July 15, 1999) specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Subsequently, we 
received a complete substantive response to the notice of initiation on 
August 2, 1999, on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Atlantic Salmon 
Trade (``FAST'') and the following individual members of FAST: Atlantic 
Salmon of Maine, Connors Aquaculture, Inc., DE Salmon, Inc., Island 
Aquaculture Corp., Maine Aqua Foods, Inc., Maine Coast Nordic, Inc., 
Treats Island Fisheries, and Trumpet Island Salmon Farm, Inc. 
(collectively, ``domestic interested parties''). As U.S. producers of 
the subject merchandise and a business association whose members are 
U.S. producers of the subject merchandise, the domestic interested 
parties claim interested-party status under sections 771(9)(C) and (F) 
of the Act. Without a substantive response from respondent interested 
parties, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), 
determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day review of this order.
    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 18, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review of 
the antidumping duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from 
Norway is extraordinarily complicated, and, therefore, we 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the deadline for this determination was originally January 
27, 2000, due to the Federal Government shutdown on January 25 and 26, 
2000, resulting from inclement weather, the timeframe for issuing this 
determination has been extended by one day.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted the review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping 
duty order 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 
administrative reviews, and the volume of imports of the subject 
merchandise for the period before and the period after the issuance of 
the antidumping duty order, and shall provide to the Commission the 
magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is 
revoked.
    The Department discusses below its determinations concerning 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin 
likely to prevail were the antidumping duty

[[Page 5586]]

order revoked. In addition, the domestic interested parties' comments 
on each of these issues 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 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). 
In addition, the Department indicated that normally it will determine 
that revocation of an antidumping duty order is likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where (a) dumping continued at 
any level above de minimis after the issuance of the order, (b) imports 
of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the order, or 
(c) dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import 
volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly (see section 
II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
    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 
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.
    The domestic interested parties argue that revocation of the 
antidumping duty order would result in continued dumping by Norwegian 
producers/exporters and material injury to the U.S. industry (see 
August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 
16). With respect to declining import volumes, the domestic interested 
parties assert that the imposition of antidumping duties has 
significantly reduced the volume of U.S. imports of subject merchandise 
from Norway. Id. at 18. Citing U.S. Census Bureau statistics, they note 
that the average import volume from Norway in the three years following 
the imposition of the order was 95.7 percent lower than average import 
volumes in the three years prior to the order. Id.
    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. With the exception of Nordic, which received a 0.00 percent 
margin in a new shipper review (62 FR 1430; January 10, 1997), dumping 
margins above de minimis have existed throughout the life of the order, 
and continue to exist, for shipments of subject merchandise from all 
other Norwegian producers/exporters investigated by the Department.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the 1991 
order. By examining U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, the Department 
finds that, consistent with import statistics provided by domestic 
interested parties, imports of the subject merchandise from Norway 
declined significantly following the issuance of the antidumping duty 
order, and continue to remain at very low levels.
    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Given that 
dumping has continued at levels above de minimis after the issuance of 
the order, import volumes for subject merchandise have significantly 
declined, respondent interested parties have waived their right to 
participate in this review before the Department, and absent argument 
and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is 
likely to continue if the order 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 
determinations (see sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin).
    The domestic interested parties assert that the Department should 
provide to the Commission the margins from the original investigation 
for Skaarfish Mowi A/S (now Kinn Salmon A/S), Domstein, Saga, Hallvard 
Leroy A/S as the rates likely to prevail if the order were revoked (see 
August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 
23). Further, domestic interested parties identify Sea Star 
International, Fremstad Group, Chr. Bjelland, Salmonor A/S and Nornir 
Group A/S as companies from the original investigation that have chosen 
to increase dumping. Domestic interested parties recommend that the 
Department assign to these companies a margin of 31.81 percent from the 
1992/93 review because these companies would be likely to dump at least 
to the same degree without the discipline of the order. Id. at 24. For 
Norwegian producers/exporters that were not parties to the original 
investigation, but were assigned margins in the Department's second and 
third administrative reviews, the domestic interested parties assert 
that the Department should assign to these companies the margins from 
those reviews. Id. at 25.
    According to the Sunset Policy Bulletin, a company may choose to 
increase dumping in order to maintain or increase market share. As a 
result, increasing margins may be more representative of a company's 
behavior in the absence of an order (see section II.B.2 of the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin). The Sunset Policy Bulletin notes that the Department 
will normally consider market share; however, absent information on 
relative market share, and absent argument to the contrary, we have 
looked at import volumes in the present case.
    As discussed in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, a more recent rate may 
be appropriate where a company chooses to increase dumping in order to 
increase or maintain market share. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 
IM146 reports, however, overall imports have decreased. Without 
company-specific information or argument related to increasing exports 
corresponding to increased dumping, we have no basis to determine that 
a more recent rate is more probative. Therefore, we will report to the 
Commission the company-specific and ``all others'' rates as contained 
in the Final Results of Review section of this notice, because these 
rates reflect the behavior of producers/

[[Page 5587]]

exporters without the discipline of the order.

Final Results of Review

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Margin of
                   Manufacturer/exporter                       dumping
                                                              (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmonar A/S...............................................        18.39
Sea Start International....................................        24.61
Kinn Salmon A/S (formerly, Skaarfish)......................        15.65
Fremstad Group (A/S).......................................        21.51
Domstein and Co............................................        31.81
Saga A/S...................................................        26.55
Chr. Bjelland..............................................        19.96
Hallvard Leroy (A/S).......................................        31.81
All others.................................................        23.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: January 28, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2591 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P