Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Mechanical Transfer Presses From Japan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-810]

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Mechanical Transfer

Presses From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: Mechanical

transfer presses from Japan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order

on mechanical transfer presses (``MTPs'') from Japan pursuant to

section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the

[[Page 754]]

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 from respondent interested parties, the

Department determined to conduct an expedited sunset review. However,

upon reconsideration of our initial adequacy determination, the

Department determines that it is appropriate in this case to conduct a

full review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily

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 Preliminary 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, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050

or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

This review is being 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 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 this order is MTPs from Japan. The term

``mechanical transfer press'' refers to automatic metal-forming machine

tools with multiple die stations in which the workpiece is moved from

station to station by a transfer mechanism designed as an integral part

of the press and synchronized with the press action, whether imported

as machines or parts suitable for use solely or principally with these

machines. These presses may be assembled or unassembled. Spare and

replacement parts are outside the scope of the order (see Notice of

Scope Rulings, 57 FR 19602 (May 7, 1992)). A destack sheet feeder

designed to be used with a mechanical transfer press is an accessory

and, therefore, is not within the scope of the order (see Notice of

Scope Rulings, 57 FR 32973 (July 24, 1992)). The FMX cold forging press

is within the scope of the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 59 FR

8910 (February 24, 1994)). Finally, certain mechanical transfer press

parts exported from Japan are outside the scope of the order (see

Notice of Scope Rulings, 62 FR 9176 (February 28, 1997)). This

merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(``HTS'') item numbers 8462.99.0035 and 8466.94.5040. The HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

On January 4, 1990, the Department issued a final determination of

sales at less than fair value on imports of MTPs from

Japan.1 On February 16, 1990, the antidumping duty order on

the subject merchandise was published in the Federal

Register.2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See MTPs From Japan; Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value, 55 FR 335 (January 4, 1990).

\2\ See MTPs From Japan; Antidumping Duty Order, 55 FR 5642

(February 16, 1990).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the antidumping duty order the Department established an

estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 15.16 percent for Komatsu

Ltd, 7.49 percent for Aida Engineering, Ltd. (``Aida''), and an ``all

others'' rate of 14.51 percent. Id. There have been six administrative

reviews of this order, and no investigations of duty absorption by the

Department.

The order remains in effect for all producers and exporters of MTPs

from Japan, except for Aida for which the Department revoked the

antidumping duty order.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See MTPs From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Revocation of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Order in Part, 63 FR 37331 (July 10, 1998).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

On June 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on MTPs 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 Verson Division of Allied Products Corporation

(``Verson''), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i)

of the Sunset Regulations. We received a complete substantive response

on July 1, 1999 from Verson, within the deadline specified in section

351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Verson claimed interested

party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a U.S. manufacturer

of a domestic like product and stated it was the petitioner in the

original investigation.

We received complete substantive responses from respondent

interested parties, Komatsu, Ltd. (``Komatsu''), Hitachi Zosen

Corporation (``HZ'') and Fukui Machinery Co., (``Fukui'') (collectively

``the respondents''). Komatsu, HZ, and Fukui claimed interested party

status as manufacturers and exporters of MTPs under section 771(9)(A)

of the Act. Komatsu maintains that it was a respondent interested party

in the original investigation and has participated in two of six

subsequent administrative reviews conducted by the Department. Komatsu

further notes that it is participating in the 1998-1999 administrative

review that the Department is currently conducting. HZ and Fukui state

that they did not participate in the original investigation; however,

HZ states that it has participated in four of six subsequent

administrative reviews and Fukui has participated in one administrative

review.

On July 12, 1999, we received comments from Verson requesting that

the Department determine that the individual respondent interested

party responses to the notice of initiation are inadequate with regard

to respondent interested parties as a whole. Verson argued, therefore,

that an expedited review was appropriate. The regulations provide, at

section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A), that the Secretary normally will conclude

that respondent interested parties have provided adequate response to a

notice of initiation where it receives complete substantive responses

from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than

50 percent, on a volume basis (or value basis, if appropriate) of the

total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the

five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of

initiation. In their substantive responses, the respondents provided

the Department statistics on export volume and value of MTPs for the

time period 1994 through 1998. After examining the statistical

information, the Department concluded that it did not receive adequate

response to the notice of initiation from respondent interested

parties. As a result, pursuant to the regulations, on July 21, 1999,

the Department determined to conduct an expedited sunset review of this

order 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C).

[[Page 755]]

In accordance with section 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). Therefore, on October 12, 1999 , the Department determined that

the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on MTPs from Japan is

extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion

of the final results of this review until not later than December 28,

1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year

Reviews, 64 FR 5523 (October 12, 1999).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adequacy

As noted above, on July 21, 1999, the Department determined that,

during the five-year period from 1994 to 1998, the average annual

percentage of the respondents' exports of MPTs to the United States

with respect to the total subject merchandise exports to the United

States falls significantly below the 50 percent threshold that the

Department normally will consider to be an adequate foreign response.

In light of the fact that, on July 10, 1998, the order was revoked with

respect to Aida, our reliance on total imports during that time

resulted in an underestimation of the percent of exports accounted for

by respondent interested parties. Although, absent Aida-specific export

statistics, we are unable to determine the exact percentage of subject

merchandise exports accounted for by respondent interested parties,

given Aida's historic participation in administrative reviews,

including our finding that Aida had exported in commercial quantities

over a three consecutive year period, we determine that the respondent

interested parties account for a significantly greater percent of

exports of subject merchandise than we had originally estimated and,

therefore, that respondent interested parties may account for more than

the 50 percent threshold that the Department applies in its adequacy

determinations. Additionally, interested parties have raised

significant issues in their submissions with respect to the significant

decline in import volumes and the unique nature of the market such that

the Department believes it is appropriate to conduct a full review and

allow submission of additional data.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is

conducting 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 preliminary determinations concerning continuation

or recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin are discussed

below. In addition, interested parties 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 its substantive response, Verson argues that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping by Japanese producers and exporters of MTPs. Verson

maintains that the history of this order (i.e., the administrative

review history) demonstrates that since the issuance of the order,

respondents have not been able, on a continuous basis, to sell MTPs in

the United States at fair value.

Verson argues that section 752(c)(1) of the Act instructs the

Department to consider not only the weighted-average dumping margins

determined in the original investigation and subsequent reviews but

also the volume of imports for the period before and the period after

the issuance of the order. Verson contends that since the issuance of

the order, only one company (Aida) has made sales to the U.S. at not

less than fair value over a consecutive three year period. Verson

asserts that although since the issuance of the order, imports of MTPs

from Japan have remained relatively stable, during many of the

administrative reviews conducted by the Department, several Japanese

producers have reported ``no sales.'' In conclusion, Verson argues that

a decline in import volume after the issuance of the order coupled with

the continuation of dumping margins above de minimis is probative of

the fact that producers and exporters of MTPs from Japan will continue

to dump if the order is revoked. For these reasons, Verson maintains

that the Department should determine that there is a likelihood of the

continuation or recurrence of dumping of MTPs from Japan if the order

is revoked.

In their substantive responses, the respondent interested parties

argue that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to the

continuation or recurrence of dumping. Komatsu argues that, with the

exception of small dumping margins found in early reviews of Aida (a

company for which the order has subsequently been revoked), in every

single review the Department has found no dumping. Further, according

to Komatsu, it is unlikely that this situation will change if the order

is revoked. Komatsu argues that the original dumping finding was the

result of a unique historical situation. Specifically, Komatsu argues

that the mid-1980s saw unprecedented boom in demand for MTPs, with U.S.

automakers retooling to compete with Japanese automakers and with

Japanese automakers establishing transplant manufacturing operations in

the United States. Komatsu asserts that once this process was completed

in the late 1980s, there was a sharp drop in demand and since that

time, the U.S. market for MTPs has been characterized by relatively few

sales either for replacement of existing machines, or to supply the

relatively few new automobile manufacturing plants that

[[Page 756]]

have been built. Further, Komatsu asserts that as the MTP market has

matured to more of a replacement market, a new dynamic has been created

in which the number of bidders considered for each purchase has been

reduced. This fundamental change in the nature of competition, Komatsu

argues, has reduced the degree of competition and led to findings by

the Department in all of its administrative reviews that the Japanese

manufacturers subject to the order have not engaged in dumping.

HZ and Fukui note that in making determinations of likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of dumping, the statute requires the

Department to 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. However, citing to the SAA,

at 890, they assert that the Department recognizes that observed

patterns regarding dumping margins and import volumes are not

necessarily indicative of the likelihood of dumping. Further, HZ and

Fukui assert that, in this case, good cause exists sufficient to

warrant that the Department consider factors other than import volume

in determining whether revocation of an antidumping duty order is

likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of sales at less than

normal value. Citing to the Commission's final report in the original

investigation, HZ and Fukui argue that MTPs are big-ticket, made-to-

order products, with relatively low and irregular sales volumes, and

with peak sales occurring as the presses reach the end of their useful

life of nearly 20 years. Similar to the arguments of Komatsu, HZ and

Fukui argue that the late 1980s witnessed an unexpected increase in

U.S. demand for MTPs which resulted in an increase in the importation

of foreign made presses, including presses from Italy, the United

Kingdom, and Japan. Further, as demand slackened in the late 1980s and

early 1990s, so too did imports, with imports from foreign countries

generally, and Japan in particular, declining significantly. This

trough in the business cycle has lasted throughout the 1990s and, HZ

and Fukui assert that it is expected to continue for another five to

eight years. HZ and Fukui argue that, accordingly, any comparison

between shipments prior to the imposition of the order and following

the imposition of the order would be meaningless because the import

levels from all producers declined, whether they were found to be

dumping or not.

HZ and Fukui go on to assert that the extreme cyclical nature of

the MTP market constitutes ``good cause'' for the Department to

consider price, cost, market, and other economic factors in determining

whether revocation of the order is likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping. An examination of those factors, HZ and Fukui

argue, will reveal that revocation of the order will not likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping.

We did not receive rebuttal from Verson or Komatsu. In their

rebuttal comments, HZ and Fukui 5 reiterate their arguments

that there is no likelihood that revocation of the order will result in

continuation or recurrence of dumping. Again, HZ and Fukui assert that

comparison of the pre- and post-order export volumes does not provide a

valid measure of likelihood of dumping. They argue that the presumption

that a post-order decline in shipment volumes indicates the foreign

producer's inability to move the pre- order volumes without dumping

does not apply to big-ticket items such as MTPs given that MTPs are

unique pieces of machinery always are manufactured to exacting customer

specifications, with extremely long useful lives, and sporadic sales.

Additionally, citing to the July 1, 1999, substantive response of

Verson, at page 10, they assert that Verson acknowledges that the lack

of sales following the imposition of the order is closely correlated to

the nature of the marketplace which is characterized by a very limited

number of high value transactions. HZ and Fukui further assert that, in

the original investigation, Verson argued that it was the unique nature

of the market, with sporadic sales, that caused injury to the domestic

industry. Therefore, Verson cannot now assert that respondents'

sporadic sales following the imposition of the order demonstrate an

inability to sell in the United States at fair value.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ In their rebuttal comments, HZ and Fukui announced a name

change for Fukui, pursuant to a resolution of the shareholders.

Fukui was formerly known as ``Fukui Machinery Co., Ltd.'' The name

change took effect on July 1, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HZ and Fukui also take issue with Verson's argument that only one

Japanese respondent has made sales for three years in a row without

dumping. HZ and Fukui assert that the entire sales process from initial

bid to delivery can take in excess of two years and, as a result, sales

are infrequent and rarely occur in two consecutive years, let alone

three. Further, HZ and Fukui assert that because the MTPs manufactured

by Aida have more diverse applications and tend to be smaller than

those manufactured by other Japanese respondents, these sales occur

more frequently, thus enabling Aida to take advantage of the

Department's policy allowing for revocation of the order for sales made

three years in a row without dumping. In summary, HZ and Fukui argue

that because of the unique nature of the market for MTPs, the

Department's analysis of pre- and post-order import levels will not

provide a reliable indicator of the likelihood of HZ and Fukui's

resumption of dumping.

As noted above, in determining whether revocation of an order is

likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, the Department

considers the margins determined in the investigation and subsequent

administrative reviews and the volume of imports for the period before

and the period after the issuance of the order. In the original

investigation, the Department estimated the margin of dumping for

Komatsu at 15.16 percent, for Aida at 7.49 percent, and for ``all

others'' at 14.51 percent. Although Aida was found to be dumping in the

second and third administrative review, at rates of 0.87 percent and

3.51 percent, respectively, we subsequently revoked the order with

respect to Aida (63 FR 37311 (July 11, 1998)) based on our

determination that Aida subsequently made sales to the United States

for three consecutive years without dumping.

Verson argues that margins above de minimis continue to exist.

However, other than the post-investigation margins found for sales by

Aida, for which the order has been revoked, the Department has found

only zero margins for all of the Japanese respondents for which an

administrative review has been conducted. With the exception of

possible imports subject to the ``all others'' rate, dumping by the

respondents Komatsu, HZ, and Fukui (as well as Ishikawajima-Harima

Heavy Industry) has been eliminated since the issuance of the order.

Our review of the public versions of Customs' annual reports to

Congress on its administration of the antidumping and countervailing

duty statutes indicates that no bonds have been posted on entries

subject to this order since October 1, 1992. Therefore, the existence

of an above de minimis all others rate is not controlling in this

sunset review.

Verson also argues that none of the Japanese producers/exporters

that remain subject to the order have made sales above fair value for a

period of three consecutive years. However, three consecutive years of

sales above fair value is the revocation standard in

[[Page 757]]

administrative reviews conducted under section 351.222 of the

regulations and is not controlling in this sunset review.

As noted in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department normally

will determine that revocation of an order is likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping where dumping was eliminated

after the issuance of the order and import volumes for the subject

merchandise declined significantly. In their substantive and rebuttal

comments, the respondents argue that, given the nature of the MTP

market, the Department's reliance on the decrease between pre- and

post-order export volumes as a basis for a determination that dumping

would be likely to continue or recur would be inappropriate in this

case. Although Verson did not provide any rebuttal to these arguments,

respondents have not supported their assertions by placing facts or

some sort of documentary evidence on the record. In essence, the

respondents are claiming that the U.S. market for MTPs has shrunk

without providing any support for this claim. While we agree with

respondents that the Department has the discretion to deviate from its

stated policies where the facts warrant such deviation, respondents

have not provided any evidence to support their claims.

While the respondents provided argument that would suggest an

explanation for the significant decrease in imports after the

imposition of the order, given the absence of evidence with respect to

pre- and post-order market share, we are not persuaded at this point

that it is appropriate to deviate from our stated policy in this case.

However, as indicated below, the Department is providing an opportunity

for interested parties who have filed substantive responses in this

review to provide additional factual evidence and arguments on this

issue.

In sum, although we have determined that the level of respondents

participation warrants a full review, we note the existence of

additional producers/exporters that have waived their right to

participate in this review, which under the statute constitutes grounds

for finding likelihood (See section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act).

Therefore, we preliminarily determine that revocation of the order

would likely result in continuation or recurrence of dumping.

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 margins 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.)

As stated in the ``History of the Order'' section of this notice,

the Department published a weighted-average dumping margin in the

original investigation of 15.16 percent for Komatsu Ltd, 7.49 percent

for Aida Engineering, Ltd., and of 14.51 percent for ``all others.''

In its substantive response, Verson cites to the Sunset Policy

Bulletin and asserts that the Department makes clear that the magnitude

of the margin of dumping in most cases is to be the company-specific

rate from the original investigation, as that margin best reflects the

behavior of the respondents free of the constraints of an antidumping

duty order. Verson argues that, accordingly, the Department should

report to the Commission the rates for Komatsu and ``all others'' from

the original investigation as the magnitude of the margin likely to

prevail if the antidumping duty order is revoked.

In their substantive responses, the respondents argue that a zero

rate will likely prevail if the order on MTPs is revoked. Komatsu

argues that, throughout the history of this order, the Department has

consistently found no dumping by Komatsu and the other Japanese

exporters. Therefore, the dumping margin for Komatsu and others will be

zero should the order be revoked.

HZ and Fukui assert that the Department may, and in this case

should, provide the Commission with a margin other than from the

original investigation. In support of their argument that the

Department select a margin other than the ``all others'' rate from the

original investigation as representative of the magnitude of the margin

likely to prevail with respect to their exports, HZ and Fukui argue

that the ``all others'' rate from the investigation represents the

weighted-average of the two companies subject to the original

investigation and does not include HZ and Fukui sales. Furthermore, HZ

and Fukui contend that they have received a zero margin in all their

administrative reviews conducted by the Department. In conclusion, they

argue that the ``all others'' rate of 14.51 percent is not

representative of the rate likely to prevail if the order is revoked.

We agree with HZ and Fukui that the Department has the discretion

to report a company-specific margin for a company that did not

participate in the original investigation where, as in the Final

Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Steel Wire Rope From the Republic

of Korea, 64 FR 42166 (August 9, 1999), where we deviated from our

policy with respect to the use of the ``all others'' rate for Kumho, a

company not subject to the original investigation. However, in that

review, a case that did not involve declining import volumes, we noted

that although Kumho did not participate in the Department's original

investigation, Kumho had participated in each of the administrative

reviews and maintained a zero or de minimis margin over the life of the

order. While we do not believe that participation in each review is

necessary, as noted below, we preliminarily determine that use of a

more recently calculated rate is not appropriate in this review.

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department noted that it may, in

response to an argument from an interested party, provide the

Commission a more recently calculated rate for a particular company

where, for that particular company, dumping margins declined or dumping

was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import volumes

remained steady or increased. Further, in analyzing import volumes, the

Department normally will consider the company's relative market share,

with such information to be provided by the parties. In this review,

the respondents have made arguments that post-order export volumes,

although significantly decreased from pre-order import volumes,

nonetheless provide sufficient support for a determination that more

recently calculated margins are probative of their behavior without the

discipline of the order. For the reasons stated above, we preliminarily

determine that the respondent interested parties' assertions have not

been supported by any evidence. specifically, in this review,the

Department believes it more appropriate to base a determination with

respect to the use of a more recently calculated margin on evidence

regarding market share; such evidence currently is not on the record.

Therefore, absent evidence that the respondents have maintained or

[[Page 758]]

increased market share while eliminating dumping, we preliminarily

determine that the margins from the original investigation are

probative of the behavior of exporter without the discipline of the

order.

Based on the above analysis, we preliminarily intend to report to

the Commission the margins contained in the Preliminary Results of

Review of this notice.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that

revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Komatsu, Ltd. (Komatsu).................................... 15.16

Aida Engineering, Ltd...................................... (\1\)

All Others................................................. 14.51

------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\Revoked.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any

hearing, if requested will be held on February 16, 2000, in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no

later than February 7, 2000, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i). We invite interested parties to submit arguments and,

as an exception to our normal practice, factual evidence related to the

issues identified in these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not

later than February 14, 2000. Rebuttal briefs also may contain factual

evidence to rebut, clarify, or correct factual evidence submitted in

other parties' case briefs. The Department will issue a notice of final

results of this sunset review no later than April 26, 2000.

This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance

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

Dated: December 28, 1999.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-284 Filed 1-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P