Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2000 / Notices 281

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations as codified at 19

CFR part 351 (1998).

Background

On August 11, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register (60

FR 41058) the antidumping duty order

on oil country tubular goods from

Korea. The Department of Commerce

published in the Federal Register a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity To Request

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1998–

1999 review period on August 11, 1999

(64 FR 43649). On August 31, 1999,

SeAH requested an administrative

review for its entries during the 1998–

1999 period of review. No other

interested party requested review of this

antidumping duty order. On October 1,

1999, in accordance with Section 751 of

the Act, the Department initiated the

review (64 FR 53318). On December 3,

1999 respondent withdrew its request

for review.

Section 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) of the

Department’s regulations stipulates that

the Secretary may permit a party that

requests a review to withdraw the

request not later than 90 days after the

date of publication of the notice of

initiation of the requested review. In

this case, respondent has withdrawn its

request for review within the 90-day

period. No other interested party

requested a review and we have

received no other submissions regarding

respondent’s withdrawal of its request

for review. Therefore, we are

terminating this review of the

antidumping duty order on oil country

tubular goods from Korea.

This notice is published in

accordance with section 751 of the Act

and section 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Richard O. Weible,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–97 Filed 1–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Final Results of Full Sunset Review:

Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Full

Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel

Cooking Ware from Mexico.

SUMMARY: On August 26, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published a notice of

preliminary results of the full sunset

review of the antidumping duty order

on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from

Mexico 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. We received

comments from both domestic and

respondent interested parties. As a

result of this review, the Department

finds that revocation of this 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:

Martha V. Douthit 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) 482–5050 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 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) 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 subject to this

antidumping duty order is porcelain-onsteel cooking ware (‘‘POS cooking

ware’’) from Mexico, which includes tea

kettles, that do not have self-contained

electric heating elements. All of the

foregoing are constructed of steel and

are enameled or glazed with vitreous

glasses. This merchandise is currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’) subheading 7323.94.00.

Kitchenware currently entering under

HTSUS subheading 7323.94.00.30 is not

subject to the order. Although the

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of the

order remains dispositive.

Background

On August 26, 1999, the Department

published in the Federal Register (64

FR 46651) the Preliminary Results of

Full Sunset Review: Porcelain-on-Steel

Cooking Ware from Mexico,

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). In the

Preliminary Results, we found that

revocation of the order would likely

result in the continuation or recurrence

of dumping. In addition, we

preliminarily determined that the

magnitude of the margin of dumping

likely to prevail if the order were

revoked was 42.71 percent for Cinsa,

S.A. (‘‘Cinsa’’), 129.40 percent for

Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A.

de C.V. (‘‘ENASA’’), and 29.52 percent

for ‘‘all others.’’

On October 12, 1999, within the

deadline specified in 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i), we received comments

on behalf of Cinsa and ENASA

(collectively, ‘‘the respondents’’). On

October 12, 1999, within the deadline

specified in 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1), we

received rebuttal comments from

Columbian Home Products (‘‘CHP’’), the

domestic interested party in this review.

We have addressed the comments

received below.

Comments

Comment 1: The respondents assert

that, in the amended final results of the

eleventh administrative review, the

Department’s presumption that duties

were being absorbed fails to meet the

requirement that the Department carry

out a meaningful analysis of whether

antidumping duties are absorbed. The

respondents assert that if in duty

absorption inquiries the Department

need not actually analyze absorption

but, rather, may simply presume it from

the existence of dumping alone, the

statute’s duty absorption provisions are

rendered superfluous. Additionally, the

respondents assert that the Department’s

presumption is, in effect, impossible to

rebut. Therefore, the respondents argue

that application of the duty absorption

methodology to calculate Cinsa’s and

ENASA’s likely margins if the order

were revoked is contrary to law.

In its rebuttal comments CHP argues

that Cinsa and ENASA did not

challenge the Department’s duty

absorption determination in either their

case brief on the Department’s

preliminary results of the eleventh

administrative review nor in their

282 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2000 / Notices

appeal of the final results of that review

to a binational panel. Therefore, CHP

argues that the Department’s duty

absorption determination in the

eleventh administrative review is final

and cannot be disturbed. CHP argues

that this argument is untimely and

should be rejected because the

Department does not have the authority

to make duty absorption determinations

in a sunset review. Additionally, CHP

argues that the respondent’s challenge

to the Department’s use of a rebuttable

presumption in making a determination

of duty absorption is without merit.

CHP argues that the Department has

previously considered exactly this same

argument, in the course of

administrative reviews where it has

properly been raised, and has rejected it.

Further, CHP asserts that given that the

duty absorption provision was enacted

long before the beginning of the

eleventh administrative review, the

respondents had ample opportunity to

address the issue of duty absorption and

to develop evidence demonstrating that

duty absorption was not occurring. In

conclusion, CHP argues that the

Department’s duty absorption

determination in the eleventh review is

final and cannot be changed in the

sunset review. Further, under the

statute, the Department must report the

duty absorption determination to the

Commission.

DOC Position: We agree with CHP that

duty absorption determinations are

made in the context of administrative

reviews. Additionally, we agree with

CHP that the appropriate forum for

challenging the duty absorption

determination made in the course of the

eleventh administrative review would

have been in case briefs and/ or postfinal challenges with respect to the

administrative review. As we explained

in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department will provide to the

Commission, on a company-specific

basis, its findings regarding duty

absorption (see section II.B.3.a).

Therefore, in this final results of full

sunset review we are reporting to the

Commission the affirmative findings of

duty absorption made by the

Department in the amended review

results of the eleventh administrative

review.

Comment 2: The respondents argue

that even if the Department’s duty

absorption methodology is lawful, its

application is not appropriate in this

case. Rather, for the purposes of the

final results of this sunset review, the

Department should report margins in

accordance with its normal

methodology—using margins found in

the original investigation. The

respondents elaborate that in the

eleventh review, Cinsa’s and ENASA’s

margins were calculated inclusive of an

adjustment to account for alleged

reimbursement of antidumping duties, a

determination which they are currently

challenging. They assert that in the final

results of the eleventh administrative

review the Department determined that

reimbursement of antidumping duties

owed by the affiliated U.S. importer

took place, and the Department adjusted

Cinsa’s and ENASA’s EP and CEP to

effectively double the antidumping duty

liability of the U.S. importer. Therefore,

they argue that an additional adjustment

to these margins—which have already

been doubled due to reimbursement to

account for duty absorption—result in

impermissible double counting. The

respondents argue that, in order to avoid

the effects of impermissible double

counting, the Department may report

either (1) the margins calculated in the

original investigation or (2) the margins

calculated in the final results of the

eleventh administrative review

unadjusted for the alleged

reimbursement of antidumping duties,

but subject to the duty absorption

methodology.

CHP, in its rebuttal comments, cites to

the Sunset Policy Bulletin, and argues

that because the Department made an

affirmative determination of duty

absorption in the administrative review

of this order that was initiated in 1998,

Department correctly applied its policy

in the preliminary results of this sunset

review. Additionally, CHP argues that

the Department should reject the

respondents’ argument because the

respondents inappropriately equate the

Department’s reimbursement regulation

with the duty absorption provision of

the statute with respect to both the

purposes of the different provisions and

the means of achieving the purposes.

Specifically, CHP asserts that the

reimbursement regulation is intended to

address the relationship between the

exporter and its U.S. importer (affiliated

or unaffiliated) and provide a remedy

when there is evidence that the exporter

has reimbursed the U.S. importer for

antidumping duties. The duty

absorption provision, in contrast, is

intended to address the relationship

between an affiliated U.S. importer and

its unaffiliated customers in the United

States. CHP further asserts that duty

reimbursement and duty absorption are

separate problems with separate

remedies. With respect to

reimbursement, the exporter would

cease transfers of funds to the importer

to pay the antidumping duties, and the

importer would demonstrate that it can

satisfy its antidumping obligations

without such assistance. Whereas, with

respect to duty absorption, the affiliated

U.S. importer would demonstrate that it

passed the cost of antidumping duties

through to its unaffiliated U.S.

customers. Additionally, citing to the

Statement of Administrative Action

(‘‘the SAA’’) H.R. Doc. No. 103–316,

Vol. 1 (1994), at 885–886, CHP argues

that the SAA explicitly recognizes the

different and mutually exclusive

purposes of the duty absorption and

reimbursement provisions. Arguing that

reimbursement and duty absorption can

occur independently of one another,

CHP states that the respondents

provided no reason why there could not

be reimbursement of antidumping

duties and duty absorption with respect

to the same sales and, absent such

evidence, the Department must

conclude that both did occur. CHP

argues that, if the Department

determines that it may not adjust the

final margins from the eleventh review

to account for duty absorption under the

theory that these margins have already

been adjusted to reflect duty absorption,

in the alternative, the Department

should report the margins from the

eleventh administrative review as the

margins likely to prevail should the

order be revoked.

DOC Position: In the Sunset Policy

Bulletin the Department explained that,

where duty absorption had been found

in an administrative review initiated in

1998 (for transition orders), the

Department normally will determine

that a company’s current dumping

margin is not indicative of the margin

likely to prevail if the order is revoked

and will provide to the Commission the

higher of the margin that the

Department otherwise would have

reported to the Commission or the most

recent margin for that company adjusted

to account for findings on duty

absorption. The Department cited to the

SAA at 885, and the House Report, H.R.

Rep. No. 103–826, pt. 1 (1994), at 60,

which provide that duty absorption is a

strong indicator that the current

dumping margins calculated by the

Department in reviews may not be

indicative of the margins that would

exist in the absence of an order. After

the revocation of an order, an importer

could achieve the same pre-revocation

return on its sales by lowering its prices

in the United States in the amount of

the duty that previously was being

absorbed. Additionally, the Senate

Report, S. Rep. No. 103–412 (1994), at

50, suggests that the Department’s

notification to the Commission of its

findings on duty absorption should

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2000 / Notices 283

1See Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 64 FR 1592 (January 11,

1999), Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From Mexico:

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 26934 (May 18, 1999), and Porcelainon-Steel Cookware From Mexico: Amended Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 29262 (June 1, 1999).

include, to the extent practicable, some

indication of the magnitude of the

absorption.

Based on our analysis of 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 order, we

preliminarily determined that we would

normally determine that the margins

calculated in the original investigation

best reflect the behavior of producers/

exporters without the discipline of the

order (64 FR 46651). However, we noted

that consistent with the Sunset Policy

Bulletin, we were adjusting the most

recent margin to account for duty

absorption findings and, because the

adjusted margins for Cinsa and ENASA

are higher than the rates from the

original investigation, we would report

the adjusted rates as the margins likely

to prevail were the order revoked. Id.

In light of the comments received, we

have reconsidered our preliminary

determination with respect to the

magnitude of the margin likely to

prevail should the order be revoked.

While we agree with CHP that duty

reimbursement and duty absorption are

separate problems with separate

remedies, we also agree with the

respondents that, in this case, our stated

policy of adjusting the margin to take

into account the findings on duty

absorption may result in an

overestimation of the margin likely to

prevail were the order revoked.

Specifically, having determined duty

reimbursement, for the purpose of

calculating the export price and the

constructed export price in the eleventh

review, the Department deducted from

the starting price the amount of

antidumping duties reimbursed to CIC

by Cinsa and ENASA.1 This deduction

for reimbursed duties had the effect of

increasing the weighted-average margins

found during the administrative review.

The Department also found that both

Cinsa and ENASA made all of their

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States through an importer that

is affiliated within the meaning of

section 751(a)(4) of the Act. Because we

determined that there was a dumping

margin on 68.03 percent of Cinsa’s U.S.

sales during the period of review and on

98.52 percent of ENASA’s sales during

the period of review, we found that

antidumping duties had been absorbed

by the respondents on those percent of

sales, respectively. Id. As noted above,

although we agree that reimbursement

and absorption may occur with respect

to the same sales, because of the effect

of consideration of reimbursement on

the margin, we do not agree that the

entire margin is absorbed such that we

should double the margins calculated

inclusive of reimbursement. We agree

with CHP that it is not appropriate to

recalculate margins from the eleventh

administrative review in order to

eliminate the effect of reimbursement.

Rather, we believe that the calculation

in the eleventh administrative review

for reimbursement effectively

approximates the calculation we would

make to account for duty absorption.

Therefore, consistent with the Sunset

Policy Bulletin, for purposes of

determining the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail, we considered

the margins from the original

investigation (i.e., the margins we

would otherwise report to the

Commission) and the margins from the

eleventh review. As provided in section

II.B.3.b, where we have found duty

absorption, we normally will report to

the Commission the higher of the

margin that the Department otherwise

would have reported to the Commission

or the most recent margin for that

company adjusted to account for

findings on duty absorption. Because

the margins as calculated in the

eleventh review are higher than those

from the original investigation, we are

reporting those as the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail were the order

revoked.

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 for the reasons set forth in the

Preliminary Results. Additionally, as

discussed in the Preliminary Results

and above, we find that during the

administrative review covering the

period December 1, 1986 through

November 20, 1997, antidumping duties

were absorbed by Cinsa on 68.03

percent of its U.S. sales of subject

merchandise and by ENASA on 98.52

percent of its U.S. sales of subject

merchandise. Furthermore, for the

reasons set forth in the Preliminary

Results and as discussed above, we find

that the magnitude of the margins likely

to prevail if the order were revoked are

as follows: 25.42 percent for Cinsa,

65.28 percent for ENASA, and 29.52

percent for ‘‘all others.’’

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with section

751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–98 Filed 1–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–832]

Pure Magnesium From the People’s

Republic of China: Recission 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 June 30, 1999, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register a notice

announcing the initiation of an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from the People’s Republic

of China for one producer/exporter of

pure magnesium from People’s Republic

of China, Taiyuan East-United

Magnesium Company Ltd., covering the

period May 1, 1998, through April 30,

1999. The Department of Commerce

received a request for withdrawal of this

review from Rossborough

Manufacturing Company, a U.S.

importer of subject merchandise, who

requested the review. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the

Department of Commerce is now

terminating this review because the

importer has withdrawn its request for

review and no other interested parties

have requested a review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4, 2000.