Antidumping: Polychloroprene rubber from Japan,
[Federal Register: December 8, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 67656-67658]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08de98-39]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-046]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Polychloroprene rubber from Japan.
SUMMARY: On August 3, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan (63 FR 41227) 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 substantive comments filedon behalf of the domestic industry, and inadequate response (in this case no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Magnitude of the Margin section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1998.
[[Page 67657]]
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 antidumping finding are shipments of polychloroprene rubber, an oil resistant synthetic rubber also known as polymerized chlorobutadiene or neoprene, currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as items 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00, 4003.00.00, 4462.15.21 and 4462.00.00. HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and for Customs purposes. The written descriptions remain dispositive.
This review covers all manufacturers and exporters of polychloroprene rubber from Japan.
Background
On August 3, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan (63 FR 41227), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from Dupont Dow Elastomers L.L.C. (``DuPont'') on August 18, 1998, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. DuPont claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a manufacturer of the domestic like product. We received a complete substantive response from Dupont on September 2, 1998, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a response from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and our regulations (19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), the Department determined to conduct an expedited review.
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted- average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping finding, and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the finding is revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or recurrence of dumping and magnitude of margin are discussed below. In addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of 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 base 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.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). In addition, the Department indicated that it 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).
The antidumping finding on polychloroprene rubber from Japan was published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 73-333 (38 FR 33593, December 6, 1973). Since that time, the Department has conducted a number of administrative reviews.‹SUP›1‹/SUP› The finding remains in effect for all imports of polychloroprene rubber from Japan.
\1\ See Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 14746 (April 6, 1982); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 9678 (March 8, 1983); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 49 FR 10694 (March 22, 1984); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 49 FR 46454 (November 26, 1984); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 61 FR 29344 (June 10, 1996); and Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 61 FR 67318 (December 20, 1996).
In its substantive response, DuPont argues that the history of the case and actions taken by Japanese producers and exporters of polychloroprene rubber prior to and during the pendency of this proceeding demonstrate that revocation likely would result in recurrence of dumping of polychloroprene rubber in the United States (see September 2, 1998 Substantive Response of DuPont). With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the finding, DuPont states that in the four years prior to the finding of dumping by Treasury in 1973, Japanese imports of polychloroprene rubber trebled. However, according to DuPont, after the issuance of the finding, imports of polychloroprene rubber from Japan declined and then ceased. DuPont states that the results of final determination by Treasury and by the Department indicate shipments of polychloroprene rubber from Japan ceased after the issuance of the finding and have not resumed. In conclusion, DuPont argues that the Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were the finding revoked because imports of polychloroprene rubber ceased soon after the issuance of the order.
In each of the administrative reviews conducted by the Department, with the exception of the first administrative review covering various periods from July 1, 1973 through November 30, 1980, the Department found that there were no known shipments by the known exporters of polychloroprene rubber from Japan.‹SUP›2‹/SUP› We find, therefore,
[[Page 67658]]
that the cessation of imports after the issuance of the finding is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or dumping. Furthermore, deposit rates above de minimis levels continue in effect for two of the eight known Japanese polychloroprene rubber producers and/or exporters. As discussed in Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if imports cease after the order is issued, we may reasonably assume that exporters could not sell in the United States without dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume dumping. Therefore, absent argument and evidence to the contrary, and given that shipments of the subject merchandise ceased soon after the issuance of the finding and that dumping margins continued after the issuance of the finding, the Department, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the finding were revoked.
\2\ See Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 14746 (April 6, 1982); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 48 FR 9678 (March 8, 1983); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 49 FR 10694 (March 22, 1984); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 49 FR 46454 (November 26, 1984); Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 61 FR 29344 (June 10, 1996); and Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 61 FR 67318 (December 20, 1996).
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, in a sunset review of an antidumping finding for which no company-specific margin or all others rate is included in the Treasury finding published in the Federal Register, the Department normally will provide to the Commission the company-specific margin from the first final results of administrative review published in the Federal Register by the Department. Additionally, if the first final results do not contain a margin for a particular company, the Department normally will provide the Commission, as the margin for that company, the first ``new shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding. (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).
Because Treasury did not publish weighted-average dumping margins in its finding, the margins determined in the original investigation are not available to the Department for use in this sunset review. Under these circumstances, the Department normally will select the margin from the first administrative review conducted by the Department as the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the finding is revoked. We note that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
In its substantive response, DuPont argues that because Treasury did not publish company-specific margins or a ``new shipper's'' rate in this finding, the Department, consistent with its Sunset Policy Bulletin, should report the company-specific margins and ``new shipper's'' rate calculated by the Department in the final results of the first administrative review.
The Department finds no reason to deviate from our Sunset Policy Bulletin in this review. We determine that the original margins calculated by the Department are probative of the behavior of the Japanese manufacturers and exporters of polychloroprene rubber. (See Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding; 47 FR 14746 (April 6, 1982). We will report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all other's'' rate contained in the Final Results section of this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
Margin Manufacturer/exporter
(percent)
Denki Kagaku Kogyo, K.K......................................
0 Denki Kagku Kogyo, K.K./Hoei Sangyo Co., Ltd.................
55 Suzugo Corporation...........................................
55 All Other's Rate.............................................
55
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: December 1, 1998. Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-32539Filed12-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
