[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73511-73515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-802; A-475-802; A-599-802; A-588-807]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Industrial Belts From
Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Industrial
Belts from Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
on industrial belts from Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan (64 FR
29261) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(``the Act''). On the basis of notices of intent to participate and
adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of The Gates Rubber
Company, a domestic interested party, and inadequate response (in these
cases, no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department
determined to conduct expedited reviews. As a result of these reviews,
the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the
levels indicated in the Final Results of Reviews section of this
notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick 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-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
These reviews were 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''), and in 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 Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing
Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998), (``Sunset
Policy Bulletin'').
Scope
The merchandise covered by the antidumping duty orders on Germany
and Japan includes industrial belts other than V-belts and synchronous
belts used for power transmission, in part or wholly of rubber or
plastic, and containing textile fiber (including glass fiber) or steel
wire, cord or strand, and whether in endless (i.e., closed loops)
belts, or in belting in lengths or links from Germany and Japan.\1\ The
[[Page 73512]]
antidumping duty order on imports from Italy covers industrial V-belts
and synchronous belts and components used for power transmission, in
part or wholly of rubber or plastic, and containing textile fiber
(including glass fiber) or steel wire, cord or strand, and whether in
endless (i.e., closed loops) belts, or in belting in lengths or
links.\2\ The antidumping duty order on imports from Singapore includes
industrial V-belts used for power transmission. These include
industrial V-belts, in part or wholly of rubber or plastic, and
containing textile fiber (including glass fiber) or steel wire, cord or
strand, and whether in endless (i.e., closed loops) belts, or in
belting in lengths or links.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or
Uncured, From the Federal Republic of Germany (54 FR 25316, March
17, 1991), and Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value; Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether
Cured or Uncured, From Japan, 54 FR 25314 (June 14, 1989).
\2\ See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or
Uncured, From Italy, 54 FR 25313 (June 14, 1989).
\3\ See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or
Uncured, From Singapore, 54 FR 25315 (June 14, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above orders exclude conveyor belts and automotive belts as
well as front engine drive belts found on equipment powered by internal
combustion engines, including trucks, tractors, buses, and lift truck.
The subject merchandise was classifiable under Tariff Schedules of
the United States Annotated (``TSUSA'') item numbers 358.0210,
358.0290, 358.0610, 358.0690, 358.0800, 358.0900, 358.1100, 358.1400,
358.1600, 657.2520, 773.3510, and 773.3520 in the orders for all four
countries. Currently, subject merchandise is classifiable under item
numbers 3926.90.55, 3926.90.56, 3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60,
4010.10.10, 4010.10.50, 4010.91.11, 4010.91.15, 4010.91.50, 4010.99.11,
4010.99.15, 4010.99.19, 4010.99.50, 5910.00.10, 5910.00.90 and
7326.20.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Subject merchandise from Germany excludes item numbers
3926.90.55, 4010.10.10, and 4010.10.50; subject merchandise from
Singapore excludes item numbers 3926.90.56, 3926.90.57, 3926.90.59,
3926.90.60, 4010.91.11, 4010.91.15, 4010.91.19, 4010.99.11,
4010.99.15, 4010.99.19, and 4010.99.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, The Gates Rubber Company (``Gates'')
asserts that the HTSUS subheadings of Chapter 40 were significantly
revised in 1996, and, as a result, the products covered by the orders
became classifiable under HTSUS numbers 3626.90.55, 3926.90.56,
3926.90.57, 3926.90.59, 3926.90.60, 4010.21.30, 4010.21.60, 4010.22.30,
4010.22.60, 4010.23.30, 4010.23.41, 4010.23.45, 4010.23.50, 4010.23.90,
4010.24.30, 4010.24.41, 4010.24.45, 4010.24.50, 4010.24.90, 4010.29.10,
4010.29.20, 4010.29.30, 4010.29.41, 4010.29.45, 4010.29.50, 4010.29.90,
5910.00.10, 5910.00.90, and 7326.20.00.\5\ U.S. Customs officials
confirmed the accuracy of the HTSUS numbers for subject merchandise
suggested by Gates.\6\ However, the above HTSUS and TSUSA subheadings
are provided for convenience and customs purposes and the written
description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ According to Gates, subject merchandise from Germany
excludes item numbers 3926.90.55, 4010.21.30, 4010.21.60,
4010.22.30, 4010.22.60, 4010.23.30, 4010.23.41, 4010.23.45,
4010.23.50, 4010.23.90, 4010.24.30, 4010.24.41, 4010.24.45,
4010.24.50, 4010.24.90, 4010.29.10, and 4010.29.20 (see July 1,
1999, Substantive Response of Gates at 3); and subject merchandise
from Singapore excludes item numbers 3926.90.56, 3926.90.57,
3926.90.59, 4010.23.30, 4010.23.41, 4010.23.45, 4010.23.50,
4010.23.90, 4010.24.30, 4010.24.41, 4010.24.45, 4010.24.50,
4010.24.90, 4010.29.30, 4010.29.41, 4010.29.45, 4010.29.50,
4010.29.90 for imports (see July 1, 1999, Substantive Response of
Gates at 3).
\6\ See Memo to File of telephone conversation with George
Barthes, U.S. Customs official, regarding new HTSUS numbers for
industrial belts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has made the following scope rulings for the orders
on imports from Germany, Italy, and Japan:
With respect to the order on subject imports from Germany, the
Department's sole administrative review clarified that the scope of the
order includes round belts and flat belts (56 FR 9672, March 7, 1991).
Additionally, the Department determined in a 1991 scope ruling, that
the scope of the order includes nylon core flat belts and excludes
spindle belting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Scope Rulings, 56 FR 57320 (November 8, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the order on subject imports from Italy, the
Department, in the February 24, 1993, Scope Ruling, determined that
``Panther'' industrial belts from Pirelli Power Corp. are within the
scope of the order (58 FR 11209).
With respect to the order on subject imports from Japan, the
Department has made several scope rulings. The following products were
determined within the scope of the order:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product within scope Importer Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V-volt model 5L118................... Japan Freight Consolidators 57FR 16602 (May 7, 1992).
(Calif.) Inc..
Closed loop synthetic timing belt Tower Group International, 58 FR 47124 (September 7, 1993).
used in the Epson LX-800 desk-top Inc. and Epson America, Inc.
personal computer printer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following products were determined to be not within the scope
of the order:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product outside scope Importer Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59011 series of belts................ Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA... 57 FR 19692 (May 7, 1992).
Certain round and flat belts which Matsushita Electric Corp., 57 FR 57420 (December 4, 1992).
are composed of rubber or plastics Matsushita Floor Care
but are not reinforced with a Company and Panasonic
tensile member. Company.
Conveyor Belts of five-series Nitta Industries Corp., and 58 FR 59991 (November 12, 1993).
comprised of 30 models. Nitta International, Inc.
Eight-drive and blade belts.......... Honda Power Equipment 62 FR 30569 (June 4, 1997).
Manufacturing Inc.
Twenty-two drive and blade belts..... American Honda Motor Co...... 62 FR 30569 (June 4, 1997).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73513]]
History of the Orders
Germany
In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1998,
through June 30, 1988, the Department determined the dumping margins to
be 100.60 percent ad valorem for Optibelt Corporation (``Optibelt''),
the Germany company investigated, and ``all others'' (54 FR 15505,
April 18, 1989).
Since the issuance of the order, there has been one administrative
review, covering the period February 1, 1989, through May 31, 1990, in
which the Department determined a dumping margin of 100.60 percent ad
valorem for Volkmann GmbH (``Volkmann''), the German respondent subject
to the review.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof,
Whether Cured or Uncured, from the Federal Republic of Germany;
Final Results of an Antidumping Administrative Review, 56 FR 9672
(March 7, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy
In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988,
through June 30, 1998, the Department determined a dumping margin of
74.90 percent ad valorem percent for Pirelli Trasmissioni Industriali,
S.p.A. (``Pirelli''), and ``all others.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof,
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Italy; Amendment of Final Results of
an Antidumping Administrative Review, 57 FR 32196 (July 21, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been two administrative reviews of this order. In the
first review, covering the period from February 1, 1989, through May
31, 1990, the Department determined a dumping margin of 60.38 percent
ad valorem for Pirelli;\10\ in the second review, covering the period
June 1, 1990, through May 31, 1991, the dumping margin for Pirelli
increased to 70.90 percent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof,
Whether Cured or Uncured from Italy; Amendment of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 8295 (March 9, 1992).
\11\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof,
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 30938 (July 13, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore
In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988,
through June 30, 1998, the Department determined the dumping margin for
Mitsuboshi Belting (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (``MBS''), a subsidiary of
Mitsuboshi Belting Ltd. of Japan, and ``all others'', to be 31.73
percent ad valorem.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof, Whether Cured or
Uncured, from Singapore, 54 FR 15489 (April 18, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been two completed administrative reviews and one
terminated review of this order. The Department determined a dumping
margin of 31.73 percent ad valorem for MBS in the first review\13\
covering the period February 1, 1989, through May 31, 1990, and in the
second review, covering the period June 1, 1990 through May 31,
1991.\14\ A third review, covering the period June 1, 1991, through May
31, 1992, was terminated before a preliminary determination was issued
(58 FR 53707, October 18, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof,
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Singapore; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 41916 (September 14,
1992).
\14\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof,
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Singapore; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 29469 (July 2, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan
In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988,
through June 30, 1998, the Department determined a dumping margin of
93.16 percent ad valorem for Bando Chemical Industries (``Bando'') and
``all others'' (54 FR 15485, April 18, 1989).
There have been five administrative reviews of this order. In the
first review, covering the period June 7, 1989, through May 31, 1990,
the Department determined a dumping margin of 93.16 percent ad valorem
for Bando, and 52.60 percent for Nitta Industries (``Nitta'') and
Mitsuboshi Belting Limited (``MBL'').\15\ In the second administrative
review, covering the period June 1, 1990, through May 31, 1991, we
determined that the dumping margin for MBL was 93.16 percent.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof,
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 30018 (May 25, 1993).
\16\ See Industrial Belts and Components and Parts Thereof,
Whether Cured or Uncured, from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 58 FR 44496 (August 23, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the third and fourth administrative reviews, covering the
periods June 1, 1991, through May 31, 1992, and June 1, 1992, through
May 31, 1993, respectively, the Department determined a dumping margin
of 93.16 percent for MBL (59 FR 1373, January 10, 1994). The dumping
margin continued at 93.16 for MBL in the fifth review, covering the
period June 1, 1993, through May 31, 1994 (60 FR 39929, August 4,
1995).
At the request of Brecoflex Corporation (``Brecoflex''), the
Department initiated a circumvention inquiry on October 18, 1993;
however, the Department did not make a determination regarding the
merits of the inquiry because it determined that Brecoflex lacked
standing as a domestic producer of a like-product (56 FR 23693, May 6,
1994).
Background
On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping orders on industrial belts from Germany, Italy, Singapore,
and Japan (64 FR 29261), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of
Gates within the applicable deadline (June 16, 1998) specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations from all four
countries. As the petitioner in the original investigations and a
participant in each of the respective administrative reviews, Gates
claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a
U.S. producer of the domestic like product. Subsequently, we received
Gates' complete substantive responses to the notice of initiation on
July 1, 1999. Without a substantive response from respondent interested
parties, the Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C),
determined to conduct expedited, 120-day reviews of these orders.
In accordance with 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). On
October 12, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset reviews of
the antidumping duty orders on industrial belts from Germany, Italy,
Singapore, and Japan are extraordinarily complicated and, therefore,
the Department extended the time limit for completion of the final
results of these reviews until not later than December 28, 1999, in
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year
Reviews, 64 FR 55233 (October 12, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty orders 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 duty
order, and
[[Page 73514]]
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, Gates' comments with respect to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin for each of the
orders 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.2). 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 significantly (see section II.A.3).
In addition to consideration of 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
reviews, 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.
Gates argues that because manufacturers/exporters of industrial
belts from Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan have continued to dump
the subject merchandise covered by the 1989 orders and dumping margins
are consistently very high, the Department should determine that
revocation of the orders would likely lead to further dumping (see July
1, 1999 Substantive Responses of Gates (Germany and Singapore at 6;
Japan and Italy at 7)).
With respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de
minimis after the issuance of the order, Gates notes that German
manufacturers/exporters continue to dump, albeit at reduced volumes,
and continue to be subject to high margin rates of 100.60 percent (see
July 1, 1999, Substantive Response of Gates at 8). Similarly, according
the Gates, Italian, Singaporean and Japanese manufacturers/exporters
have continued to dump since the issuance of the respective orders.
Gates notes the high margin rates of 74.90 percent, 31.73 percent and
93.16 percent for Italian, Singaporean, and Japanese manufacturers/
producers, respectively (see July 1, 1999, Substantive Responses of
Gates (Italy at 9; Singapore at 8; and Japan at 10).
With respect to whether import volumes of the subject merchandise
declined significantly, Gates notes that, although the average volume
of imports industrial belts from Germany, Japan and Italy decreased
following the imposition of the orders, dumping has not been entirely
eliminated (see July 1, 1999, Substantive responses of Gates (Germany
at 9; Japan and Italy, respectively, at 8)).
Finally, Gates asserts that dumping would likely become severe if
the orders were revoked because the market for industrial belts is a
mature market characterized by intense price competition (see July 1,
1999, Substantive Responses of Gates (Germany and Singapore at 9; Italy
at 10 and Japan at 11)). Moreover, given that Asia remains in a
recession, the U.S. market is an attractive target for manufacturers/
exporters from Japan and Singapore (see July 1, 1999, Substantive
Responses of Gates (Singapore at 9; Japan at 11)).
In conclusion, Gates argues that, in each case, the Department
should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue
upon revocation of the orders because manufacturers/exporters have
continued to import into the United States even as dumping margins
remain very high.
Discussion
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 these cases, dumping margins above de minimis continue to
exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from all manufacturers/
exporters from the subject countries.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the
orders. By examining U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, the Department
finds that, consistent with import statistics provided by Gates,
imports of the subject merchandise from Germany, Italy and Japan
decreased following the issuance of the orders, from 1989 through 1995.
During this period, average imports from Germany and Japan decreased
approximately 95 percent during this period, average imports from Italy
decreased approximately 30 percent; and imports from Singapore ceased
altogether. In 1996, imports from all four countries increased and
remained generally steady until 1998; however, imports from Germany,
Japan, and Singapore were significantly lower than pre-order levels. In
contrast, Italian imports from 1996 to 1998 exceeded pre-order levels
by approximately 25 percent.
Therefore, the Department finds that the existence of dumping
margins after the issuance of the orders is highly probative of the
likelihood of continuation of recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates for
exports of the subject merchandise by all known manufacturers and
exporters from Germany, Italy, Singapore, and Japan are above de
minimus. Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of
the orders, respondent interested parties have waived their right to
participate in these reviews before the Department, and absent argument
and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is
likely to continue if the orders 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
[[Page 73515]]
determinations (see section II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin).
Gates asserts that the Department should provide to the Commission
the company-specific margins and the ``all others'' rates determined in
the original investigations of imports from Germany, Italy, Singapore,
and Japan (see July 1, 1999, Substantive Responses of Gates (Germany
and Singapore, respectively, at 10; Japan at 11; Italy at 12)) as the
rates likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Specifically, Gates
notes that, in the original investigation of subject imports from
Germany, the Department determined a margin of 100.60 percent for
Optibelt and ``all others.'' Subsequently, in the sole administrative
review, the Department determined a rate of 100.60 percent for
Volkmann. Therefore, they argue that the Department should provide to
the Commission the original margin of 100.60 percent for Optibelt and
``all others'' as determined in the investigation (see July 1, 1999,
Substantive Response of Gates (Germany) at 11).
For Italian manufacturers/exporters, gates asserts that the 74.90
percent margin in the final determination and most recent review of the
order on imports from Italy demonstrates the high probability of
continued dumping were the order were revoked. Gates concludes,
therefore, that the original rate should be applicable to Pirelli and
``all others'' (see July 1, 1999, Substantive Response of Gates (Italy)
at 12).
For manufacturers/exporters from Singapore, Gates asserts that the
Department should provide to the Commission the margin of 31.73 percent
from the original investigation for MBS and ``all others'' (see July 1,
1999, Substantive Response of Gates (Singapore) at 10). The Department
also applied this rate to MBS in subsequent administrative reviews.
Finally, for Japanese manufacturers/exporters, Gates notes that the
original margin of 93.16 percent continued in the administrative
reviews of the order on imports from Japan. Therefore, Gates argues, a
rate of 93.16 percent should be applicable to Bando and all other
companies not specifically investigated in the investigation (see July
1, 1999, Substantive Response of Gates at 11).
The Department agrees with Gates' arguments concerning the choice
of margins to report to the Commission for each of the countries. As
noted in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the rates from the original
investigation are the only rates that reflect the behavior of exporters
without the discipline of the order. In these reviews, we find no
reason to deviate from our stated policy. Therefore, consistent with
section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department finds that
the original rates are probative of the behavior of manufacturers/
exporters from Germany, Italy, Singapore and Japan were the orders
revoked. As such, the Department will report to the Commission the
company-specific and ``all others'' rates from the original
investigations as contained in the Final Results of Reviews section of
this notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation
of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation of
recurrence of dumping at the margin listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Country and manufacturer /exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany:
Optibelt Corporation.................................... 100.60
All Others.............................................. 100.60
Italy:
Pirelli................................................. 74.90
All Others.............................................. 74.90
Singapore:
Mitsuboshi Belting (Singapore) Pte. Lte................. 31.73
All Others.............................................. 31.73
Japan:
Bando................................................... 93.16
All Others.............................................. 93.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
These five-year (``sunset'') reviews and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: December 23, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-33976 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M