[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32481-32485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15445]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-504]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Petroleum Wax Candles
from the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Petroleum
wax candles from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (64 FR 364)
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 filed on 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 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: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner,
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
Effective Date: June 17, 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 antidumping order is certain
scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and
having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following
shapes: Tapers, spirals and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds,
columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled
containers.1 This product is currently classified under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number
[[Page 32482]]
3406.00.00. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and U.S.
Customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There have been numerous clarifications to the scope of this
order. For a complete listing of these clarifications, see Appendix
A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of
petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China.
Background
On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic
of China (63 FR 66527), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of the
National Candle Association (``NCA'') on January 15, 1999, within the
deadline specified in Sec. 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.
The NCA claimed interested party status under section 771(9) of the
Act.2 The NCA stated that it is a trade association
comprised of 40 domestic producers of the subject merchandise. In
addition, the NCA noted that it was the petitioner in the original
investigation. We received a complete substantive response from the NCA
on February 3, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset
Regulations under Sec. 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a
substantive response from any respondent interested party to this
proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the
Department determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day review of this
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In its substantive response of February 3, 1999, the NCA
claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(E) of the Act,
as a trade association, a majority of whose members manufacture
candles in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 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, and
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 the magnitude of the margin are discussed
below. In addition, the NCA's comments with respect to 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 bases for
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.3). In addition, the Department
indicated that normally it 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).
In addition to considering guidance on likelihood provided in the
Sunset Policy Bulletin and legislative history, 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
Sec. 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a
waiver of participation.
The antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from People's
Republic of China was published in the Federal Register on August 28,
1986 (51 FR 30686). The Department has conducted one administrative
review of this order.3 The order remains in effect for all
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of
China; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53
FR 47742 (November 25, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, the NCA argues that revocation of the
order against candles from the People's Republic of China would likely
result in the continuation of dumping (see February 3, 1999 Substantive
Response of the NCA at 10). With respect to whether dumping continued
at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the order, the NCA
states that the dumping margin has remained at 54.21 percent for all
exports of the subject merchandise during the entire life of the order
(see February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the NCA at 11). Further,
with respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased after
the issuance of the order, the NCA states that, following the
imposition of the order, imports of the candles from the People's
Republic of China decreased dramatically and remained relatively low
for several years. The NCA argues, however, that there has been an
increase in the imports of non-subject candles from the People's
Republic of China in recent years. They believe the exclusion of
certain types of candles from the order, through means of scope
clarifications, has permitted an increase in the imports of candles
that can enter the United States without restriction (see February 3,
1999 Substantive Response of the NCA at 11).
In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argued that the
Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping
continue if the order were to be revoked because (1) dumping margins
have existed for all known exporters of the subject merchandise during
the entire life of the order and (2) shipments of subject merchandise
decreased significantly following the imposition of the order and have
not regained their pre-order levels.
In making its decision, the Department considered the existence of
dumping margins and the volume of imports before and after the issuance
of the order. As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies
continue dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the
Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the
discipline were removed. In the instant proceeding, a dumping margin of
54.21 percent has existed throughout the life of the order for
shipments of the subject merchandise from all Chinese producers/
exporters.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Department established a dumping margin of 54.21 percent
for all producers, manufacturers, and exporters of the subject
merchandise in the original investigation of this case (see
Petroleum Wax Candles from the People's Republic of China: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 25085 (July
19, 1986)). In the antidumping duty order, the Department published
an ``all others'' rate of 54.21 percent as well as a 54.21 percent
rate for China National Native Produce and Animal By-Product Import
& Export Corp. (see Antidumping Duty Order: Petroleum Wax Candles
From the People's Republic of China, 51 FR 30686 (August 28, 1986)).
In the only administrative review of this order, the Department also
published an ``all others'' rate of 54.21 percent as well as 54.21
percent rate for P&C Enterprises (Hong Kong) (see Petroleum Wax
Candles from the People's Republic of China; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 FR 47742 (November 25,
1988)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32483]]
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the volume of imports of the subject merchandise before and
after issuance of the order. The statistics on imports of petroleum wax
candles between 1983 and 1998, provided by the domestic interested
parties and confirmed by U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, indicate
that annual imports of candles from the People's Republic of China
covered under the HTSUS item number decreased sharply the year the
order was created but, in recent years, have again increased and even
surpassed the levels attained prior to the imposition of the order. The
NCA argues that a substantial portion of the increase in import volumes
of merchandise covered by the HTSUS item number may be attributed to
merchandise determined by the Department to be excluded from the scope
of the order and is, therefore, not relevant to this sunset
determination.5 Nonetheless, the Department can confirm,
through an examination of U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports, that
imports of subject merchandise continue in substantial quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Appendix A for a list of scope determinations made in
this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that the existence of a deposit rate above a de minimis
level coupled with the continued exportation of subject merchandise is
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping. The SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, state that the
``(e)xistence of dumping margins after the order, or the cessation of
imports after the order, 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, it is reasonable to assume
that dumping would continue if the discipline were removed.'' A dumping
margin continues in effect for exports of the subject merchandise by
all known PRC exporters. Therefore, given that dumping has continued
over the life of the order and respondent interested parties have
waived their right to participate in this review before the Department,
and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department
determines that, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, dumping is likely to continue if the order were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in
the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for
companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not
begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department
normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from
the investigation. (See section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)
Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated
margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption
determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin.)
The Department, in its final determination of sales at less than
fair value, published a weighted-average dumping margin for all
producers, manufacturers, and exporters of petroleum wax candles from
the People's Republic of China (51 FR 25085, July 10, 1986). The
Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
In its substantive response, the NCA states that the dumping margin
established in the original investigation is at least as high as the
margin likely to prevail if the order were revoked. The NCA, echoing
the guidance provided by the Sunset Policy Bulletin, argues that this
margin best reflects the behavior of the PRC exporters absent the
constraints of an antidumping order (see February 3, 1999 Substantive
Response of the NCA at 12).
The Department agrees with the NCA's argument concerning the choice
of the margin rate to report to the Commission. An examination of the
margin history of the order as well as an examination of import
statistics of the subject merchandise, as provided by U.S. Census
Bureau IM146 Reports, confirms that dumping margins have existed
throughout the life of the order and that imports of the subject
merchandise continue.
The Department finds the margin from the original investigation is
the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of producers and
exporters without the discipline of the order. Therefore, consistent
with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine that the margin
calculated in the Department's original investigation is probative of
the behavior of PRC producers and exporters of petroleum wax candles if
the order were revoked. We will report to the Commission the country-
wide rate from the original investigation contained in the Final
Results of Review section of this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Chinese Manufacturers/Exporters........................ 54.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: June 11, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix A
The following is a list of scope clarifications issued by the
Department, the date of the determination, and the party who
requested the clarification.
Please note that scope requests received after July 1, 1997 have
been analyzed pursuant to the Department's revised scope regulations
(19 CFR part 351).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department's
Date Interested party determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Jan 99.................... Meijer.............. Wax-filled container
(rabbit-shaped)
within scope.
[[Page 32484]]
24 Dec 98................... Endar............... ``Floating'' candle
within scope.
18 Dec 98................... Boston Warehouse.... Citronella outdoor
candle not within
scope.
18 Dec 98................... Ocean State Jobbers. 80% beeswax, 20%
petroleum wax
candles not within
scope.
15 Dec 98................... Target Stores....... Citronella outdoor
candles not within
scope.
11 Dec 98................... Et Al. Imports...... 80% beeswax, 20%
petroleum wax
candles not within
scope.
10 Dec 98................... Costco Wholesale.... 81% beeswax, 19%
petroleum wax
candles not within
scope.
31 Aug 98................... Leader Light........ Parffin/palm oil in
stearic acid shell
in scope wax-filled
container.
24 Aug 98................... Kohl's.............. Various; gold rope,
angel, and vine
decorated in scope;
star and tree w.f.
containers in
scope; container
with Xmas scene
outside scope.
2 Jul 98.................... Et Al. Imports...... Bamboo-shaped candle
outside scope.
11 Jul 98................... Meijer, Inc......... Various candles and
w.f. containers
(see scope ruling);
11 Jun 98................... Meijer, Inc......... Sweetheart tapers
and wax-filled
glass containers
with decorative
hearts are within
the scope of the
order. A wax-filled
porcelain bunny,
and Easter taper
with a chick
attached, an Easter
bunny head teal
light, a Valentine
heart teal light, a
heart-shaped candle
on a heart base, a
``candy kiss''
candle, and a
``bunny long ears''
flame are outside
the scope of the
order.
6 May 98.................... Polardreams Inc..... Granular petroleum
wax candle kits are
within the scope of
the order.
16 Mar 98................... American Drug Stores Spherical ``wax
veneer'' candle
outside scope.
15 Dec 97................... Meijer, Inc......... Gold/green rectangle
``Noel'' outside
scope, gold/green
rectangle ``Joy'',
``Peace'' candles
in scope; flame
candle in scope;
wax-filled
Valentines candle
mug outside scope.
Filed Incorrectly........... Fimax, Inc.......... Decorated spherical
candles; received 3
Sep 97; contacted
about correcting
deficiencies but no
reply.
25 Sep 97................... Russ Berrie......... Heart-shaped
``trinket box''
candle in scope;
8 Sep 97.................... Meijer, Inc......... Four terra cotta
containers in
scope; jack-o'-
lantern out;
2 Sep 97.................... Russ Berrie......... Star-shaped
``confetti'' pillar
is within scope.
15 Sep 97................... Indio Products, Inc. Assorted tapers,
columns and votives
in scope.
25 Sep 97................... M.G. Maher.......... Red spiral candles
in scope;
9 Apr 97.................... Dollar Tree Stores.. Holly taper is
outside scope.
9 Apr 97.................... Hallmark Cards...... Red/white candle
packaged as
peppermint candy is
within scope.
9 Apr 97.................... Inst. Financing Red/white candle
Services. packaged as
peppermint candy is
within scope.
Pending..................... Ocean State Jobbers. 80/20 beeswax/
petroleum wax
tapers and votives;
received 3 Sep 96;
no deadline.
Withdrawn................... Sun-It Corp......... Citronella tapers;
received 27 Jun 96;
no deadline.
Terminated.................. Cost Plus........... Beeswax/petroleum
wax tapers; request
withdrawn by Cost
Plus.
9 Dec 96.................... Mervyn's............ Cube candle with sun
face is within
scope.
30 Oct 96................... Midwest of Cannon Certain pillars,
Falls. Easter taper are
in; asparagus stalk
is outside scope;
Cube, oblong within
scope.
30 Oct 96................... Enesco Corp......... Holiday candles,
disc-shaped candle
are outside scope;
Cube, birthday
within scope.
28 Oct 96................... Russ Berrie Co., Inc Heart-shaped terra
cotta container is
within scope.
26 Aug 96................... Delightful 75/25 beeswax/
Dimensions. petroleum wax
tapers are within
scope ``until
otherwise notified
by the
Department.'' (USCS
classification
ruling).
Terminated.................. Kendal King Graphics Holiday wax-filled
tins; terminated 29
Aug 96 at Kendal's
request.
25 Sep 96................... Springwater Christmas feather
Confection vs. the candle is within
United States. scope, holly
feather candle is
outside scope (Slip
Op. 96-160 CIT;
remand of 14 Feb 95
ruling).
24 Jun 96................... Morris Friedman & Co Wax-filled bucket,
wax-filled glass
containers are
within scope.
28 Sep 95................... Concept Marketing... ``Safe-2-Lite''
candle is outside
scope because it is
a utility candle.
16 May 95................... Sun It Corporation.. ``Flag Lites,''
``Porch Torch,''
``Gigantic Fruit,''
Pumpkin candles are
outside scope.
Terminated.................. Boomster Imports.... Cube candle;
terminated 6 Jul
95.
Terminated.................. Kmart Corporation... Holiday pillar
candles; terminated
26 Jun 95.
14 Feb 95................... Watkins Incorporated Holiday pillar
candle is outside
scope.
14 Feb 95................... Springwater ``Feather'' spiral
Confection. candles are within
scope (remanded by
CIT; see 13 May 96,
above).
13 Jan 95................... Two's Company....... Taper with holiday
figurine is outside
scope; pillar
candles with
decorations are
within scope.
[[Page 32485]]
16 Dec 94................... Lew-Mark............ Wax-filled ``pansy''
tins are within
scope.
Terminated.................. Scentex, Inc........ Candles containing
potpourri; candles
produced in Macau;
terminated 7 Sep
94.
27 Jul 94................... Star Merchandise Co. Certain citronella
Inc. candles outside
scope; candles in
holiday tins
outside scope;
certain wax-filled
containers are
within scope.
27 Jul 94................... Success Sales Co.... Holiday pillar
candles are outside
scope.
27 Jul 94................... West Coast Tapers with holiday
Liquidators. figurines and
candles molded as
identifiable
objects are outside
scope.
6 Jun 94.................... Kole Imports........ Tapers with holiday
figurines are
outside scope
6 Jun 94.................... A J Cohen Co........ Tapers with holiday
figurines are
outside scope.
30 Sep 93................... Cherrydale Farms.... Currier & Ives
holiday tins are
outside scope.
30 Sep 93................... Hallmark Cards, Inc. ``Party'' rounds are
within scope;
certain wedding
candles are outside
scope.
10 Jun 93................... San Francisco Candle Certain mushroom,
oval/egg, and
spherical candles
are outside scope.
7 Jun 93.................... Primark............. Certain wax-filled
tins with Santa
Claus designs are
outside scope;
other wax-filled
tins within scope.
9 Apr 93.................... Trade Advisory Group Certain terra cotta
candles are within
scope.
9 Apr 93.................... Garrett Hewitt, ``Giorgio'' candles
Int'l. are within scope.
12 Feb 93................... Simcha Candle Co.... ``Household''
candles are outside
scope; certain
tealight candles
are within.
17 Mar 92................... Wolf D. Barth Co.... Van Gogh
``sculpture'' and
Monet spiral are
within scope.
11 Dec 91................... W.M. Stone & Co..... Easter holiday
tapers are outside
scope (USCS
ruling).
4 Nov 91.................... San Francisco Candle Moonlite and
Candylite candles
are within scope.
3 Sep 91.................... Fabri-Centers, Inc.. Certain citronella
candles are outside
scope.
2 Jul 90.................... Rite Aid Corp....... Certain holiday
tapers are outside
scope (USCS
ruling).
20 Mar 89................... U.S. Customs Service ``Party'' candles
CIE N-212/85; Supp. (6\5/8\ by \1/8\)
8. are outside scope
Ruling issued
directly to USCS.
in ltr to A R
Beikirch, USCS, 8
Feb 89.
21 Sep 87................... U.S. Customs Service Certain novelty
CIE N-212/85; Supp. candles w/scenes or
6. symbols outside
scope; numeral and
``identifiable
object'' candles
outside scope.
9 Sep 87.................... West Coast Certain holiday
Liquidators. pillars and tapers
are outside scope
(USCS ruling).
23 Aug 87................... Carmichael Certain novelty
International. candles are outside
scope.
23 Jul 87................... Empire Candle Co.... Candles with metal-
cored wicks are
within scope.
13 Jul 87................... Giftco, Inc......... Candles w/raised
holiday motifs are
outside scope (see
CIE N-212/85, Supp.
6, 21 Sep 87).
30 Oct 86................... Global Marketing Certain tapers with
Services. permanently
attached figurines
are outside scope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-15445 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P