[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53996-53998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25874]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-811]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Drafting Machines From
Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: drafting
machines from Japan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on drafting machines from Japan 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 response filed on
behalf of a domestic interested party, and inadequate response (in this
case, no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department
determined to conduct an expedited sunset 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: 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, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050
or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 1999.
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''). 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 merchandise subject to this order includes drafting machines
that are finished, unfinished, assembled, or unassembled, and drafting
machine kits. The term ``drafting machine'' refers to ``track'' or
``elbow-type'' drafting machines used by designers, engineers,
architects, layout artists, and others. Drafting machines are devices
for aligning scales (or rulers) at a variety of angles anywhere on a
drawing surface, generally a drafting board. A protractor head allows
angles to be read and set and lines to be drawn. The machine is
generally clamped to the board. Also included within the scope are
parts of drafting machines. Parts include, but are not limited to,
horizontal and vertical tracks, parts of horizontal and vertical
tracks, band and pulley mechanisms, protractor heads, and parts of
protractor heads, destined for use in drafting machines. Accessories,
such as parallel rulers, lamps and scales are not subject to this
order. This merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (``HTS'') item numbers 9017.10.00 and 9017.90.00. (This
merchandise was previously classified under item number 710.8025 of the
Tariff Schedule of the United States.) The HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written
description remains dispositive.
History of the Order
On November 8, 1989, the Department issued a final determination of
sales at less than fair value on imports of drafting machines from
Japan.1 On December 29, 1989, the antidumping duty order on
the subject merchandise was published in the Federal
Register.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Drafting Machines and Parts Thereof From Japan; Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 54 FR 46961
(November 8, 1989).
\2\ See Drafting Machines and Parts Thereof From Japan;
Antidumping Duty Order, 54 FR 53671 (December 29, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the antidumping duty order the Department established an
estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 90.87 percent for (one
respondent)
[[Page 53997]]
Mutoh Industries, Ltd. (``Mutoh''), and an ``all others'' rate of 90.87
percent. Id. There have been no administrative reviews of this order,
and no investigations of duty absorption by the Department.
The order remains in effect for Mutoh, and all other producers and
exporters of drafting machines from Japan.
Background
On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on drafting machines 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 Vemco Drafting Products Corporation
(``Vemco''), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i)
of the Sunset Regulations. We received a complete substantive response
from the domestic interested party on July 1, 1999, within the deadline
specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Vemco
claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a
U.S. manufacturer of a domestic like product. Vemco was the petitioner
in the original investigation.
We did not receive any response from respondent interested parties
in this review. As a result, and in accordance with our regulations (19
CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)) we determined to conduct an expedited
sunset review of this order.
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted 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 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 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 determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.
In addition, Vemco's 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 order-wide 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 addition to considering 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.
In its substantive response, Vemco argues that dumping is likely to
continue or recur if the antidumping duty order on drafting machines
from Japan were revoked because sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States declined to negligible amounts after the Department
imposed the antidumping duty order. Therefore, Vemco asserts that this
action serves as evidence that producers and exporters of the subject
merchandise cannot sell in any significant quantities in the United
States without dumping.
Specifically, with regard to imports of the subject merchandise,
Vemco asserts that prior to the imposition of this order, import
volumes of drafting machines to the U.S. were substantial (see Vemco's
Substantive Response, July 1, 1999 at 7), and that after the imposition
of the order, Mutoh America, ceased its imports of drafting machines
from Japan.3 Because the applicable HTS item numbers cover
imports in addition to the subject merchandise, (i.e., cover a basket
category) in further support of its assertion that sales ceased to the
U.S., Vemco submitted an affidavit from Mr. Paul McManigal Vemco's Vice
President (see Attachment 1 of Vemco's Substantive Response). In the
affidavit, Mr. Paul McManigal states that since the imposition of the
order he has closely monitored imports of drafting machines. Mr.
McManigal notes that in the year following the issuance of the order
imports declined in negligible amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Vemco variously asserts that imports of drafting machines
from Japan have declined significantly, on the one hand, and ceased
altogether, on the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the existence of dumping margins, Vemco notes that
in the Department's final determination of sales at less than fair
value, the Department assigned a dumping margin to Mutoh and ``all
others'' of 90.87 percent; the duty deposit rate of 90.87 percent still
exists.
In conclusion, Vemco argues that a decline in import volume after
the issuance of the order, coupled with the continuation of dumping
margins above the de minimis level, is probative that producers and
exporters of drafting machines from Japan will continue to dump if the
order were revoked. Therefore, Vemco maintains that the Department
should determine that there is a likelihood of the continuation of
dumping of drafting machines from Japan if the order were revoked.
As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, existence of dumping margins
after the order is issued is highly probative of the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping. 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 of the order were
revoked. We agree with Vemco that dumping margins above the de minimis
level continue to exist for Mutoh, the only respondent reviewed in the
original investigation.
Although Vemco asserts at various points in its argument that
imports of drafting machines from Japan ceased entirely after the
imposition of the order, the import statistics do not conclusively
support a finding of
[[Page 53998]]
cessation of imports. As noted above, imports of the subject
merchandise enter the United States under an HTS basket category (i.e.,
entries of non-subject merchandise are also reported under the same
item number). After examining the Department's import trade statistics,
we find that imports declined significantly after the issuance of the
order. We are unable to determine from the statistics however whether
the negilible imports under the HTS item number are of subject or non-
subject merchandise.
As noted in the SAA, declining import volumes, accompanied by the
continued existence of dumping margins after the issuance of the order
may provide a strong indication that, absent an order, dumping would be
likely to continue, because the evidence would indicate that the
exporter needs to dump to sell at pre-order volumes. Therefore it is
reasonable to conclude that Japanese producers and exporters of the
subject merchandise cannot sell in the United States without dumping.
Given that dumping above de minimis continued over the life of the
order, imports decreased significantly after the issuance of the order,
respondent interested parties waived their right to participate in the
instant review, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the
Department determines that dumping would likely continue or recur if
the order on drafting machines from Japan were revoked.
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 margin 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.)
The Department, in its final affirmative determination of sales at
less than fair value, published a weighted-average dumping margin of
90.87 percent for one Japanese producer/exporter of the subject
merchandise, and an ``all others'' rate of 90.87 percent.
With respect to the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if
the order were revoked, in its substantive response, Vemco urged the
Department to follow the guidance of the SAA and its stated policy and
provide to the Commission the margins from the original investigation.
We agree with Vemco's assertion that we should report to the
Commission the rate from the original investigation. Consistent with
the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department, in this case, finds that
the rates from the original investigation are the most probative of the
behavior of Japanese producers and exporters of drafting machines if
the order were to be revoked. Therefore, absent information and
argument to the contrary, we see no reason to deviate from our stated
policy, and we will report to the Commission the margins contained in
the Final Results of Review of this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutoh Industries, Ltd. (Mutoh)............................. 90.87
All Others................................................. 90.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: September 29, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-25874 Filed 10-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P