Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices 753

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–602, A–570–814, A–588–602, A–583–

605, A–549–807]

Continuation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Certain Carbon Steel ButtWeld Pipe Fittings From Brazil, China,

Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of continuation of

antidumping duty orders: Certain

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from

Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and

Thailand.

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’), pursuant to sections

751(c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended (‘‘the Act’’), determined

that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders on certain carbon steel butt-weld

pipe fittings from Brazil, China, Japan,

Taiwan, and Thailand are likely to lead

to continuation or recurrence of

dumping (64 FR 67847). On December

22, 1999, the International Trade

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’),

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act,

determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on certain

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from

Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and

Thailand would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time (64 FR 71830). Therefore, pursuant

to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(4), the Department

is publishing notice of the continuation

of the antidumping duty orders on

certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe

fittings from Brazil, China, Japan,

Taiwan, and Thailand.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Young or Melissa G. Skinner,

Office of Policy for Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–6397 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 3, 1999, the Department

initiated, and the Commission

instituted, sunset reviews (64 FR 23596

and 64 FR 23672, respectively) of the

antidumping duty orders on certain

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from

Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and

Thailand pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Act. As a result of its reviews, the

Department found that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would likely

lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping and notified the Commission

of the magnitude of the margins likely

to prevail were the orders to be revoked

(see Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld

Pipe Fittings From Brazil, China, Japan,

Taiwan, and Thailand, 64 FR 67847

(December 3, 1999)).

On December 22, 1999, the

Commission determined, pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation

of the antidumping duty orders on

certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe

fittings from Brazil, China, Japan,

Taiwan, and Thailand would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably

foreseeable time (see Certain Carbon

Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From

Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and

Thailand, 64 FR 71830 (December 22,

1999) and USITC Pub. 3263,

Investigations Nos. 731–TA–308–310

and 520–521 (Review) (December

1999)).

Scope

The products covered by these

reviews are pipe fittings from Brazil,

China, Japan, Taiwan, and Thailand.

Pipe fittings from Brazil, Taiwan, and

Japan are defined as carbon steel buttweld pipe fittings, other than couplings,

under 14 inches in diameter, whether

finished or unfinished form, that have

been formed in the shape of elbows,

tees, reducer, caps, etc., and, if forged,

have been advanced after forging. These

advancements may include any one or

more of the following: coining, heat

treatment, shot blasting, grinding, die

stamping or painting. Such merchandise

was classifiable under Tariff Schedules

of the United States Annotated

(‘‘TSUSA’’) item number 610.8800.

These imports are currently classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item

number 7307.93.30.

Pipe fittings from Thailand and China

are defined as carbon steel butt-weld

pipe fittings, having an inside diameter

of less than 14 inches, imported in

either finished or unfinished form.

These formed or forged pipe fittings are

used to join section in piping systems

where conditions require permanent,

welded connections, as distinguished

from fittings based on other fastening

methods (e.g., threaded grooved, or

bolted fittings). These imports are

currently classifiable under the HTSUS

item number 7307.93.30. The TSUSA

and HTSUS subheadings are provided

for convenience and United States

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive as to the

scope of the product coverage for each

of the orders.

These reviews cover imports from all

manufacturers and exporters of pipe

fittings from Brazil, China, Japan,

Taiwan, and Thailand.

Determination

As a result of the determinations by

the Department and the Commission

that revocation of these antidumping

duty orders would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and material injury to an industry in the

United States, pursuant to section

751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department

hereby orders the continuation of the

antidumping duty orders on certain

carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from

Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and

Thailand. The Department will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to continue to

collect antidumping duty deposits at the

rate in effect at the time of entry for all

imports of subject merchandise. The

effective date of continuation of these

orders will be the date of publication in

the Federal Register of this Notice of

Continuation. Pursuant to sections

751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the Act, the

Department intends to initiate the next

five-year review of these orders not later

than December 2004.

Dated: December 29, 1999.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–288 Filed 1–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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

754 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices

1See MTPs From Japan; Final Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 55 FR 335 (January

4, 1990).

2See MTPs From Japan; Antidumping Duty

Order, 55 FR 5642 (February 16, 1990).

3See 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).

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 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

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

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

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).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices 755

4See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 5523 (October 12, 1999).

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

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 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. 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 orderwide 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

756 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices

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.

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 postorder 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 preorder 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.

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 postorder 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices 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 weightedaverage 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 weightedaverage 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

758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2000 / Notices

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.

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

Komatsu, Ltd. (Komatsu) .......... 15.16

Aida Engineering, Ltd ............... (1)

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

1Revoked.

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–357–804]

Silicon Metal From Argentina;

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Rescission of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Rescission of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On November 4, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register (64 FR 60161) a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from Argentina. This

administrative review covered one

Argentine manufacturer and exporter of

silicon metal, Electrometalurgica

Andina S.A.I.C. (‘‘Andina’’), for the

period of September 1, 1998 through

August 31, 1999. The Department has

now rescinded this review as a result of

the absence of Andina’s shipments and

entries into the United States of subject

merchandise during the period of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen Kramer or Linda Ludwig, Office

of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0405 or

482–3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, are to the provisions effective

January 1, 1995, the effective date of the

amendments made to the Tariff Act by

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

silicon metal. During the less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, silicon

metal was described as containing at

least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99

percent, silicon by weight. In response

to a request by the petitioners for

clarification of the scope of the

antidumping duty order on silicon

metal from the People’s Republic of

China, the Department determined that

material with a higher aluminum

content containing between 89 and 96

percent silicon by weight is the same

class or kind of merchandise as silicon

metal described in the LTFV

investigation. See Final Scope Rulings—

Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon

Metal From the People’s Republic of

China, Brazil and Argentina (February 3,

1993). Therefore, such material is

within the scope of the orders on silicon

metal from the PRC, Brazil and

Argentina. Silicon metal is currently

provided for under subheadings

2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) and

is commonly referred to as a metal.

Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon

metal containing by weight not less than

99.99 percent of silicon and provided

for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the

HTS) is not subject to this review. These

HTS subheadings are provided for

convenience and U.S. Customs

purposes. Our written description of the

scope of the proceeding is dispositive.

Background

On September 9, 1999, the

Department published a notice of

opportunity to request an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on silicon metal from Argentina (64 FR

48890). On September 30, 1999,

petitioners in this proceeding, requested

a review of sales made by Andina

during the period September 1, 1998

through August 31, 1999. On November

4, 1999, the Department initiated an

administrative review (64 FR 60161).

On November 23, 1999, Andina

submitted a certification to the

Department that it did not, directly or

indirectly, enter for consumption, or

sell, export, or ship for entry for

consumption in the United States

subject merchandise during the period

of review. The Department performed a

customs query for entries from

Argentina classified under HTS

numbers 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50

during the period of review and found

no entries during that time period. In

response to a telephone inquiry, counsel

for petitioners stated they had no

information to the contrary. See

Memorandum to the File from Helen M.

Kramer dated November 30, 1999.

Therefore, we have determined that

Andina made no entries of the subject

merchandise into the customs territory

of the United States during the period

of review.