Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5497

1See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished and

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 60 FR

49251 (September 22, 1995); Heavy Forged Hand

Tools, Finished and Unfinished, With or Without

Handles, from the People’s Republic of China; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 15028 (April 4, 1996); as amended,

Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished and

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the

People’s Republic of China; Amendment of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 61 FR 24285 (May 14, 1996); Heavy Forged

Hand Tools, Finished and Unfinished, With or

Without Handles, from the People’s Republic of

China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 51269 (October 1,

1996); as amended, Heavy Forged Hand Tools from

the People’s Republic of China; Notice of

Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 24416 (May 5, 1997);

Heavy Forged Hand Tools from the People’s

Republic of China; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 11813 (March

13, 1997); Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished and

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the

People’s Republic of China; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 63 FR

16758 (April 6, 1998); as amended, Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews Pursuant to Remand from the Court of

International Trade: Heavy Forged Hand Tools,

Finished and Unfinished, With or Without Handles,

from the People’s Republic of China, 63 FR 55577

(October 16, 1998) and Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews

Pursuant to Remand from the Court of International

Trade: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished and

Unfinished, With or Without Handles, from the

People’s Republic of China: Correction, 64 FR 851

(January 6, 1999); Heavy Forged Hand Tools,

Finished and Unfinished, With or Without Handles,

from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results

and Partial Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 43659 (August 11,

1999).

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–803, A–570–803]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Reviews: Axes and Adzes and Picks

and Mattocks From the People’s

Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

expedited sunset reviews: Axes and

adzes and picks and mattocks from the

People’s Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on axes

and adzes and on picks and mattocks

from the People’s Republic of China

(‘‘PRC’’) (64 FR 35588) 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 domestic interested parties and

inadequate responses 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 orders would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the levels indicated in the Final

Results of Reviews section of this

notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darla D. Brown 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, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3207 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

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 Fiveyear (‘‘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 Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871

(April 16, 1998) (‘‘Sunset Policy

Bulletin’’).

Scope

Although we provide the full scope

language for the order on heavy forged

hand tools (‘‘HFHTs’’) below, this

determination applies only to the types

of HFHTs which fall under the orders

(A–570–803) on axes and adzes and

picks and mattocks from the PRC.

HFHTs include heads for drilling,

hammers, sledges, axes, mauls, picks,

and mattocks, which may or may not be

painted, which may or may not be

finished, or which may or may not be

imported with handles; assorted bar

products and track tools including

wrecking bars, digging bars and

tampers; and steel wool splitting

wedges. HFHTs are manufactured

through a hot forge operation in which

steel is sheared to the required length,

heated to forging temperature, and

formed to final shape on forging

equipment using dies specific to the

desired product shape and size.

Depending on the product, finishing

operations may include shot-blasting,

grinding, polishing, and painting, and

the insertion of handles for handled

products. HFHTs are currently

classifiable under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (‘‘HTS’’)

item numbers 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30,

8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60. Specifically

excluded are hammers and sledges with

heads 1.5 kilograms (3.33 pounds) in

weight and under, and hoes and rakes,

and bars 18 inches in length and under.

The HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes

only. The written description of the

scope remains dispositive.

There has been one scope ruling with

respect to the order on HFHTs from the

PRC in which the Forrest Tool

Company’s Max Multipurpose Tool was

determined to be within the scope of the

order (58 FR 59991; November 12,

1993).

These reviews cover imports from all

manufacturers and exporters of axes and

adzes and picks and mattocks from the

PRC.

History of the Orders

The Department published its final

affirmative determination of sales at less

than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) with respect to

imports of HFHTs from the PRC on

January 3, 1991 (56 FR 241). In this

determination, the Department

published four country-wide weightedaverage dumping margins, one each for

hammers/sledges, bars/wedges, picks/

mattocks and axes/adzes. The

Department subsequently issued the

antidumping duty orders on HFHTs

from the PRC on February 19, 1991 (56

FR 6622). Since the imposition of the

orders, the Department has conducted

several administrative reviews.1 The

orders remain in effect for all

manufacturers and exporters of the

subject merchandise from the PRC.

To date, the Department has not

issued any duty absorption findings in

these cases.

Background

On July 1, 1999, the Department

initiated sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on axes and

adzes and picks and mattocks from the

PRC (64 FR 35588), pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act. For both of the

reviews, the Department received

notices of intent to participate on behalf

of O. Ames Co. and its division,

Woodings-Verona (collectively,

‘‘domestic interested parties’’) on July

16, 1999, within the deadline specified

in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. Pursuant to section

771(9)(C) of the Act, the domestic

interested parties claimed interested

5498 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

2See memoranda concerning adequacy of

respondent response dated October 19, 1999.

3See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16,

1999).

party status as domestic manufacturers

of the subject merchandise. The

Department received complete

substantive responses from the domestic

interested parties on August 2, 1999,

within the 30-day deadline specified in

the Sunset Regulations under section

351.218(d)(3)(i). In addition, we

received substantive responses on

behalf of Fujian Machinery and

Equipment Import and Export Corp.,

Shandong Huarong General Group

Corp., Shandong Machinery Import and

Export Corp., and Tianjin Machinery

Import and Export Corp. (collectively,

‘‘respondents’’). The respondents

claimed interested party status under

section 771(9)(A) as exporters of the

subject merchandise.

Using information on the value of

exports submitted by the respondents

and the value of imports as reported in

U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports, the

Department determined that

respondents’ exports to the United

States accounted for significantly less

than fifty percent of the total volume of

subject merchandise to the U.S. over the

five calendar years preceeding the

initiation of these sunset reviews.

Therefore, respondents provided

inadequate response to the notice of

initiation and, pursuant to 19 CFR

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department

determined to conduct expedited, 120-

day reviews of the orders.2

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). On

November 16, 1999, the Department

determined that the sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on axes/

adzes and picks/mattocks from the PRC

are extraordinarily complicated and

extended the time limit for completion

of the final results of these reviews until

not later than January 27, 2000, in

accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of

the Act.3

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 time-frame for issuing this

determination has been extended by one

day.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1)

of the Act, the Department conducted

these reviews 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 these determinations, the

Department shall consider the weightedaverage 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, and shall

provide to the International Trade

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) the

magnitude of the margins of dumping

likely to prevail if the order were

revoked.

The Department’s determinations

concerning continuation or recurrence

of dumping and the magnitude of the

margins are discussed below. In

addition, domestic interested parties’

and respondents’ comments with

respect to continuation or recurrence of

dumping and the magnitude of the

margins 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 it normally

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).

In their substantive responses, the

domestic interested parties argue that

revocation of the orders would likely

lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping. They base their conclusion on

the combined facts that dumping has

continued over the life of the orders at

levels well above de minimis and that

import volumes, in the case of axes/

adzes, declined significantly after the

issuance of the orders. The domestic

interested parties maintain that imports

of axes/adzes from the PRC declined

significantly from approximately $1.9

million worth of subject merchandise in

1989 to approximately $1.5 million

worth of merchandise in 1997 and to

roughly $1.2 million in 1998. They

argue that although import quantities

are not publicly available, the decline in

total value of imports indicates that

volume also declined substantially. The

domestic interested parties, however, do

not discuss import volumes for picks/

mattocks in their substantive response.

They conclude that it is reasonable to

assume that the PRC exporters could not

sell in the United States without

dumping and that, to reenter to U.S.

market, they would have to increase or

continue dumping (see August 2, 1999,

substantive response of the domestic

interested parties at 3–4).

The respondents argue that if the

orders were revoked, shipments would

likely continue at average levels as seen

in 1996 through 1998. They maintain

that there is greater competition from

other supplying countries and that

demand in the U.S. is fairly inelastic,

indicating that even with lower prices

(without dumping duties), demand for

imports of the subject merchandise from

the PRC is not likely to change much

(see July 30, 1999, substantive response

of the respondents at 2).

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 to dump with the

discipline of an order in place, the

Department may reasonably infer that

dumping would continue if the

discipline were removed. As pointed

out above, dumping margins above de

minimis continue to exist for shipments

of the subject merchandise from China.

Consistent with section 752(c) of the

Act, the Department also considers the

volume of imports before and after

issuance of the order. As mentioned

before, the domestic interested parties

maintain that imports of axes/adzes

from the PRC declined significantly

from approximately $1.9 million worth

of subject merchandise in 1989 to

approximately $1.5 million worth of

merchandise in 1997 and roughly $1.2

million in 1998.

Using the Department’s statistics,

including IM146 reports, on imports of

the subject merchandise from the PRC,

the Department concludes that imports

of axes/adzes and picks/mattocks from

the PRC have fluctuated over the life of

the orders, showing no overall trend.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5499

As noted above, in conducting its

sunset reviews, the Department

considers the weighted-average

dumping margins and volume of

imports when determining whether

revocation of an antidumping duty

order would lead to the continuation or

recurrence of dumping. Based on this

analysis, the Department finds that the

existence of dumping margins above de

minimis levels is highly probative of the

likelihood of continuation or recurrence

of dumping. A deposit rate above a de

minimis level continues in effect for

exports of the subject merchandise by at

least one Chinese manufacturer/

exporter. Therefore, given that dumping

has continued over the life of the orders,

the Department determines that

dumping is likely to continue if the

orders were revoked. Because we are

basing our determination on the fact

that dumping has continued throughout

the life of the orders, it is not necessary

to address respondent’s arguments

concerning demand.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department stated that it normally will

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.) We note

that, to date, the Department has not

issued any duty absorption findings in

either of these cases.

In their substantive responses, the

domestic interested parties recommend

that the Department deviate from its

normal practice of using margins from

the original investigation and instead

use margins from a more recent

administrative review. In the case of

axes/adzes, the domestic interested

parties recommend using the PRC-wide

margin of 21.92 calculated in the fourth

administrative review. For picks/

mattocks, the domestic interested

parties argue that the dumping margins

likely to prevail if the orders were

revoked would be 98.77 percent for

Fujian Machinery & Equipment Import

& Export Corp., as calculated in the fifth

administrative review; 70.31 percent for

Shandong Machinery Import & Export

Corp., as calculated in the fourth

administrative review; and 50.81

percent for Tianjin Machinery Import &

Export Corp., Liaoning Machinery

Import & Export Corp. and Shandong

Huarong General Group Corp., as

calculated in the original investigation.

The domestic interested parties argue

further that, in the case of picks/

mattocks, while the dumping margins

calculated by the Department have

fluctuated, the margins have increased

for most of the PRC producers.

The respondents argue that the

dumping margin likely to prevail if the

orders were revoked would be zero, but

no higher than the average margin for

the latest reviews.

The Department disagrees with both

domestic and respondent interested

parties. As noted in the Sunset

Regulations and Sunset Policy Bulletin,

the Department may provide to the

Commission a more recently calculated

margin for a particular company where

dumping margins increased after the

issuance of the order where that

particular company increased dumping

to maintain or increase market share. In

these cases, the domestic interested

parties do not provide any companyspecific argument or evidence that any

Chinese companies have increased

dumping in order to maintain or gain

market share or increase import

volumes. Moreover, while it is true that

dumping margins have increased for

some Chinese companies, we have no

company-specific information

demonstrating that imports of the

subject merchandise have increased

over the life of the orders. Since we

have no company-specific information

correlating an increase in exports for

one company with an increase in the

dumping margin for that particular

company, we cannot conclude that the

use of more recently calculated margins

is warranted in this case. Further, we do

not agree with the respondents that a

more recently calculated margin is

appropriate, because we have no

company-specific information

demonstrating that the lower, more

recent rates are associated with steady

or increasing imports.

Therefore, consistent with the Sunset

Policy Bulletin, the Department finds

that the margins calculated in the

original investigation are probative of

the behavior of Chinese producers/

exporters if the orders were revoked as

they are the only margins which reflect

their behavior absent the discipline of

the orders. As such, the Department will

report to the Commission the PRC-wide

rates from the original investigations as

contained in the Final Results of

Reviews section of this notice.

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of these reviews, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping orders would likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the margins listed below:

PRC-wide Margin

(percent)

Axes/adzes ............................... 15.02

Picks/mattocks .......................... 50.81

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 notices 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. 00–2581 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–307–815]

Postponement of Final Determination

of Antidumping Duty Investigation of

Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality

Steel From Venezuela

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of postponement of final

determination of antidumping

investigation of cold-rolled steel from

Venezuela.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit of the final determination of the

antidumping investigation of cold-rolled

flat-rolled carbon-quality steel from

Venezuela.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maureen McPhillips or Linda Ludwig,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group

III, Import Administration, International