Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip

From the Netherlands

[A-421-701]

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass

Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands.

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

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

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

on brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands (64 FR 4840) 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 filed on behalf of

domestic interested parties and adequate substantive responses filed on

behalf of the domestic and respondent interested parties, the

Department determined to conduct a full review. As a result of this

review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would not be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of a dumping.

For Further Information Contact: Eun W. Cho or Melissa G. Skinner,

Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1698 or

(202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: August 26, 1999.

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''). 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'').

[[Page 46638]]

Scope

Imports covered by this order are brass sheet and strip, other than

leaded and tin brass sheet and strip, from the Netherlands. The

chemical composition of the products under order is currently defined

in the Copper Development Association (CDA) 200 Series or the Unified

Numbering System (UNS) C20000 series. This order does not cover

products the chemical composition of which are defined by other CDA or

UNS series. The physical dimensions of the products covered by this

order are brass sheet and strip of solid rectangular cross section over

0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter) through 0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in

gauge, regardless of width. Coiled, wound-on-reels (traverse-wound),

and cut-to-length products are included. The merchandise subject to

this order is currently classifiable under items numbers 7409.21.00 and

7409.29.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise

subject to this order is dispositive.

History of the Order

The antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from the

Netherlands was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1988

(53 FR 30455).1 In that order, the Department announced

estimated weighted-average dumping margins of 16.99 percent for the

Metallverken Nederland B.V. and all-others.2

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

\1\ See Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value;

Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands, 53 FR 30455 (August 12,

1988).

\2\ In the original investigation, Outokumpu Copper Strip, B.V.

(``OBV'') was doing business under the name Metallverken Nederland

B.V., see, March 4, 1999, Substantive Response of OBV at 5 (footnote

4); also, March 3, 1999, Substantive Response of the domestic

interested parties at 24.

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

The Department has conducted several administrative reviews since

that time.3 The order remains in effect for all producers

and exporters of brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands.

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

\3\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews (Corrections), 57

FR 11352 (April 2, 1992); Brass Sheet and Strip From the

Netherlands; Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 57

FR 9534 (March 19, 1992) (this review consolidated first and second

reviews); Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 1324 (January 19,

1996); Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands; Amendment to

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 33395

(June 19, 1997); Brass Sheet and Strip From The Netherlands; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 1324,

(January 19, 1996); Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 51449

(October 1, 1997); and Brass Sheet and Strip From the Netherlands;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 49544

(September 16, 1998).

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

Background

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

the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from the

Netherlands (64 FR 4840) pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)(i) of the

Act. On February 16, 1999, the Department received a Notice of Intent

to Participate on behalf of Heyco Metals, Inc. (``Heyco''), Hussey

Copper Ltd. (``Hussey''), Olin Corporation-Brass Group (``Olin''),

Outokumpu American Brass (``American Brass''), PMX Industries, Inc.

(``PMX''), Wieland Metals, Inc. (``Wieland''), Revere Copper Products,

Inc. (``Revere''), the International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers, the United Auto Workers (Local 2367), and the United

Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC) (collectively referred to as

``domestic interested parties''), within the applicable deadline

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The

domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under

sections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(D) of the Act as U.S. brass mills,

rerollers, and unions whose workers are engaged in the production of

subject brass sheet and strip in the United States.

In their Notice of Intent to Participate, the domestic interested

parties acknowledge that American Brass is related to Outokumpu Copper

Strip, B.V. (``OBV''),4 a Netherlands producer/exporter of

the subject merchandise and respondent interested party in this

proceeding; PMX is related to Poongsan Corp., a Korean producer of the

domestic like products; and Wieland is related to Wieland Werke

Metallwerke AG,5 a German producer and exporter of the

domestic like products. Moreover, American Brass, PMX, and Wieland

stipulate that they have had experience of importing the subject

merchandise and/or the domestic like products.

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

\4\ American Brass, indicated that it does not support

continuation of this antidumping duty order against OBV, see March

3, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic interested parties, at

page 3, footnote 1; also, see American Brass's February 26, 1999

letter in Exhibit 8 of OBV' March 4, 1999 substantive response.

Also, American Brass subsequently disassociated itself from the

Rebuttal of the domestic interested parties, see the domestic

interested parties' rebuttal at 2, footnote 1. Consequently, the

Department excluded American Brass from the domestic interested

parties in the instant review.

\5\ Wieland subsequently withdrew its name from the domestic

interested parties claiming it no longer supports continuation of

the antidumping order, see March 1, 1999 letter from Counsel to the

domestic interested parties.

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

We received a complete substantive response to the notice of

initiation from the domestic interested parties on March 3, 1999. In

their substantive response, the domestic interested parties indicate

that most of their members were parties to the original investigation

with a few exceptions: Heyco did not participate in the original

investigation but fully supports the instant review, and PMX was

established after the original petitions were filed. The domestic party

also notes that American Brass was formerly known as American Brass

Company.6

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

\6\ In 1990, OBV's parent company, Outokumpu Oyj, purchased

American Brass Company (hereinafter referred to as ``the

acquisition'') and renamed the latter as Outokumpu American Brass

(``American Brass''), see OBV's March 4, 1999 substantive response

at 11 & Exhibit 7 thereof.

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

The Department received a complete substantive response on behalf

of OBV on March 4, 1999. In its substantive response, OBV, a Dutch

producer of the subject merchandise, indicates that it was the

respondent in the original investigation and a participant in several

administrative reviews of the order. See March 4, 1999, Substantive

Response of OBV at 1. Also, OBV states that American Brass belongs to

the same parent company to which OBV belongs. Id. OBV further notes

that it is the sole producer of the subject merchandise in the

Netherlands; therefore, OBV's exports account for 100 percent of the

subject merchandise imported to the United States.7 Id. at

9. We received rebuttal responses on behalf of both the domestic

interested parties and OBV on March 12, 1999.8

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

\7\ OBV also provides the Department with affidavits from the

Ministry of Economic Affairs of the Government of the Netherlands

and the Dutch Federation of the Non-Ferrous Industries, certifying

that OBV is the sole producer of the subject merchandise, see

Exhibits 6A & 6B in March 4, 1999, Substantive Response of OBV.

\8\ On March 4, 1999, the domestic interested parties requested

a four (4) day extension of the deadline for filing rebuttal

comments to the substantive responses. The Department extended the

deadline until March 12, 1999 for all participants who are eligible

to file rebuttal comments.

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

Using the Department's Trade Statistics, the United States Census

Bureau's IM146s, and the information provided by OBV concerning its

exports of the subject merchandise to the United States, the Department

determined that OBV accounted for significantly more than 50 percent of

the total exports of the subject merchandise over the five calendar

years preceding the initiation of the sunset review; hence, respondent

interested parties provided an adequate response.9 Since OBV

provided an adequate response to the notice of initiation, the

Department determined to

[[Page 46639]]

conduct a full (240 day) sunset review in accordance with section

351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.10

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

\9\ As noted earlier, OBV is the only producer of brass sheet

and strip from the Netherlands, see footnote 7.

\10\ The domestic interested parties filed comments, pertaining

to the Department's decision to conduct a full sunset review, in

which the domestic party concurred with the Department's decision,

see May 12, 1999 the domestic interested parties' comments on the

Adequacy of Responses and the Appropriateness of Expedited Sunset

Review at 2.

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

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--an order which was in effect on January

1, 1995, see section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act. The Department determined

that the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and

strip from the Netherlands is extraordinarily complicated. Therefore,

on May 28, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion

of the preliminary results of this review until not later than August

20, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the

Act.11

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

\11\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada, Brass Sheet and

Strip From the Netherlands, Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From

Mexico, Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From Mexico: Extension of

Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 28983

(May 28, 1999).

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

Determination

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

conducting this review to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping duty 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 original 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 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

continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin

are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

Parties' Comments

The domestic interested parties, in their substantive response of

March 3, 1999, at 32, argue that dumping of brass sheet and strip by

OBV will continue if the order is revoked. To support their argument,

the domestic interested parties point to decreased import volumes of

the subject merchandise after the issuance of the order, id. at 43-44.

Although they acknowledge that OBV's average dumping margins have had a

downward trend and are currently at zero, the domestic interested

parties, nonetheless, insist that OBV achieved lower weighted-average

dumping margins primarily by drastically reducing import volumes of the

subject merchandise after the issuance of the order, id. To illustrate

their contention, first, the domestic interested parties put forth

import data pertaining to the period before and the period after the

issuance of the order. The domestic interested parties compare a three

year (1984-1986) average of import volumes prior to the issuance of the

order with a three year (1989-1991) average subsequent to the order:

15.1 million pounds versus 7.8 million pounds--a 48.3 percent decrease,

id.

Next, the domestic interested parties indicate that, with respect

to imports of brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands, between 1992

and 1998, imports of the subject merchandise never exceeded 552,000

pounds. This volume, the domestic interested parties note, is less than

four percent of the average volume in the pre-petition period, id.

Therefore, the domestic interested parties conclude that the

Department must determine that OBV is incapable of selling commercially

significant quantities of the subject merchandise in the U.S. without

resuming the practice of dumping. In other words, to the domestic

interested parties, revocation of the current order would result in

resumed dumping and major increases in import volumes of the subject

merchandise, id.

OBV, in its Substantive Response of March 4, 1999, at 1 and 12-14,

argues that if the order were revoked, OBV is not likely to resume

dumping. OBV also states that mere existence of the order and past

margins, in and of themselves, should not be justifications for the

maintenance of the order; instead, the Department should consider all

other relevant information and arguments that OBV put forth in its

substantive response, id.

Although OBV points out that the Department has found zero average-

dumping margins for OBV in the two most recent administrative reviews,

id. at 17,12 OBV's primary contention lies with its notion

that the comparison of pre- and post-order volumes is a meaningless way

to determine whether dumping of the subject merchandise would recur.

While not denying its export volumes of the subject merchandise to the

U.S. have declined since the issuance of the order, OBV goes one step

further by asserting that the volume comparison is not a valid measure

and carries no probative value in determining OBV's ability to continue

to export without dumping, insofar as OBV poses unique circumstances,

id. at 14-17.

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

\12\ See footnote 3, supra.

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

As to why its situation is unique, OBV claims that it does not have

to dump to preserve its position in the United States market because it

has a sister company, American Brass, as a U.S. domestic producer, see

OBV's substantive response at 15.13 In other words, OBV

argues that it no longer has to dump the subject merchandise in order

to maintain or preserve market share in the United States, for its

sister company American Brass, alone, is adequate in producing and in

selling the subject merchandise in the United States. Put differently,

OBV argues that, via its sister company, OBV can maintain its market

share in the U.S. while exporting significantly smaller quantities than

before the imposition of the order, id. at 17. Consequently, in a

situation like this, OBV avers, the fact that imports of subject

merchandise have significantly declined carries no probative value with

respect to OBV's ability to continue to export the subject merchandise

without dumping.

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

\13\ See footnote 6, supra. Also, according to OBV, American

Brass is the largest mill (almost four-times larger than OBV in

terms of production capacity) in the world for rolled copper and

copper alloy (i.e., brass) products, see substantive response of OBV

at 20.

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

OBV goes on to point out that it is not even permitted to compete

with American Brass in the U.S. market because OBV and American Brass

are sister companies, thereby precluding OBV from competing with any

other domestic producers and eliminating the possibility that OBV would

even consider dumping its products in the U.S. market.14

Consequently, OBV states, since the acquisition, it only played and

will continue to play, a

[[Page 46640]]

relatively minor role as a supplier of brass sheet and strip products

in the United States, id. at 21-22.15 According to OBV, it

merely wants the order revoked so that it can avoid costs, burdens,

legal fees, inherent uncertainties, and management disruptions that are

intrinsic to administrative reviews of the order, id. at 17.

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

\14\ OBV currently exports only a specific type of brass strip

(radiator strip) in which OBV claims a comparative advantage over

American Brass, and which American Brass does not produce in

significant quantity, id. at 27-28.

\15\ To this effect, OBV presents a company memo, a letter

written by the President of Outokumpu Copper Products Oy in which

the President indicated that American Brass should be the sole

supplier of brass and strip products in the U.S., id. at 25.

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

In support of its assertions, OBV compiles an extensive Economic

Experts' Report, which lists various findings: assuming no foreseeable

major changes in the U.S. market, due to a significant investment, OBV

became world cost leader in radiator strip achieving its objective;

regarding radiator strip, OBV faces no competition from U.S. mills; OBV

is operating at full capacity while American Brass's production

capacity is expanding; the Dutch guilder has been weak against the U.S.

dollar, and an appreciation of the former is unlikely; OBV will not

export any products besides radiator cap because it does not want to

compete with American Brass; and the circumstances surrounding the

production and importation of the subject merchandise have changed

significantly and permanently since the original investigation, id. at

26-29. The upshot of these economic findings is that OBV would not

resume dumping if the order is revoked, id.

OBV further elaborates that strong and increasing U.S. domestic

demand coupled with projected new and technology-induced demand will

not permit downward pricing pressure on the subject merchandise in the

U.S. market.16 That is, OBV would not have to sell the

subject merchandise at less than normal value, id. 29-32. Also, making

reference to the effects of currency fluctuations upon the imports of

the subject merchandise, OBV explains that, even if the Dutch guilder

becomes stronger, such a change would not create an environment in

which OBV has to resort to dumping. Finally, OBV points out that it has

reached full production capacity (i.e., no excess capacity), that it

has well-diversified and well-established world-wide markets,

17 and that it has made a commitment not to dump in the U.S.

market, id. 34-39.18

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

\16\ OBV strongly believes that a new and better product

``CuproBraze radiator strip,'' which is created to compete with

aluminum radiator strip, would further increase demand of brass

products in general including the demand for the subject merchandise

although CuproBraze itself is not covered by the scope of the order,

see substantive response of OBV at 30-32.

\17\ Over the ten year period (1988-1998) after the issuance of

the order, OBV has exported brass strip products to seventy-five

countries: exports to the U.S. account for twenty-seven percent of

OBV's total exports. Furthermore, over ninety percent of OBV's total

shipments to the U.S. during the period of 1996-1998 is non-subject

merchandise, id. 36-38.

\18\ For this last point, OBV stresses that for last two review

periods covering 1995-96 and 1996-97, the Department's

administrative reviews show OBV's dumping margins were zero. Also,

OBV points out that Resolutions Adopted by the Board of Directors of

OBV on 18 November 1998 resolve not to violate the U.S. antidumping

laws, see id. at 38 and Exhibit 23.

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

In conclusion, OBV argues strenuously that the Department's normal

policies and procedures for determining likelihood of continuation or

recurrence of dumping based on pre-and post-order import volumes and

dumping margins are not valid measurements with respect to OBV. OBV

urges that a wide range of other information and arguments it has

submitted should be taken into account by the Department in making its

likelihood determination; that, on the basis of this additional

information the Department should find that it is unlikely that OBV

will continue to dump the subject merchandise in the United States;

and, consequently, that the Department should revoke the antidumping

order.

In their rebuttal, the domestic interested parties emphasize that

the decline in OBV's weighted-average dumping margin from 16.99 percent

to the current rate of 0.00 percent was achieved by one method only--

the virtual elimination of its exports to the United States, see

Rebuttal Response of the domestic interested parties at

18.20 The domestic interested parties state that OBV's

behavior can be best described as one with dual characters: OBV has

high dumping margins when it exports large volumes of the subject

merchandise to the United States, and has small dumping margins when it

exports low volumes, id. at 19.

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

\20\ To support this, the domestic interested parties utilize

proprietary information provided by OBV in its March 3, 1999

substantive response, which seem to indicate that the current rate

of zero percent is associated with rather insignificant import

volumes of the subject merchandise, compared to those of pre-order

volume.

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

Regarding OBV's argument that the Department to consider various

other factors outside of dumping margins and import volumes, the

domestic interested parties urge that the Department should not be

distracted by OBV's speculative contentions and claims, id. at 20. The

domestic interested parties claim that the acquisition does not change

the fact that, previously, OBV was unable to sell brass sheet and strip

without dumping. Furthermore, the evidence (with its zero current

dumping margin, OBV is only exporting very small, commercially

insignificant volumes) indicates that, currently, OBV cannot sell in

the United States without dumping.

While citing the case of Wieland-Werke AG, an exporter of brass

sheet and strip from Germany, the domestic interested parties urge the

Department to be consistent with the findings of that

review.21 Also, the domestic interested parties argue that

OBV's ``Economic Experts Report'' is, in many respects, flawed and that

it makes unsupported and incorrect claims, id. at 22. In short, the

domestic interested parties argue that OBV's characterization of the

multinational nature of the automotive industry is completely

irrelevant in ascertaining the possibility of price discrimination;

that OBV used the wrong period in discerning ``price effects of Dutch

imports''; and that OBV's usage of aggregate import data provide no

meaningful information with respect to relative product mix of imports

of like products from various countries, id. at 22-25.

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

\21\ See Brass Sheet and Strip From Germany; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to

Revoke in Part, 61 FR 49727 (September 23, 1996).

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

In concluding their rebuttal, the domestic interested parties

contend that OBV has not demonstrated why the Department should

consider other factors, outside of import volumes and dumping margins,

in determining whether continuation or recurrence of dumping of the

subject merchandise is likely if the order is revoked. As in their

substantive response, the domestic interested parties urge the

Department to find that dumping would recur were the order revoked.

OBV, in its rebuttal to the substantive response of the domestic

interested parties, restates its positions from its own substantive

response: dumping will not recur if the order is revoked because its

situation is unique, and import levels do not provide a reliable

indicator of the likelihood of OBV's resumption of dumping, see OBV's

March 12, 1999 Rebuttal to Petitioners' Substantive Response at 1-3.

OBV stresses, again, that its pre- and post-order import volumes of

the subject merchandise are not valid measurements and bear absolutely

no probative value in the Department's making of likelihood

determination because American Brass maintains market share for OBV

without OBV having to dump in the United States. In

[[Page 46641]]

addition, OBV argues that, because of the size of American Brass and

the large investment that Outokumpu OYJ has made in it, American Brass

clearly has virtually exclusive responsibility for the sale of the

broad range of brass sheet and strip products required by U.S.

customers, id. at 2-3. Therefore, OBV implies, there is no need for OBV

to resume dumping were the order revoked.

Department's Determination

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. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department indicates 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 duty 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.)

The order on brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands remains in

place for the sole respondent interested party: OBV.22

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

\22\ See footnote 2, supra.

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

Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department

considered whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis

after the issuance of the order. Although dumping of the subject

merchandise continued until 1991 at varying and generally declining

degrees, we preliminarily determine that OBV did not dump, at any level

above de minimis, during the periods, 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 (last two

administrative review periods).23

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

\23\ See footnote 3, supra, for the list of final determinations

of administrative reviews in which the Department found zero

weighted-average margins for OBV in respective period of

investigation. Also, see OBV's substantive response at 7.

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

With respect to import volumes of the subject merchandise, the data

supplied by both OBV and the domestic interested parties indicate that,

since the imposition of the order, import volumes of the subject

merchandise have declined substantially. Moreover, data in United

States Census Bureau IM146s and import data from the United States

International Trade Commission clearly indicate that imports of the

subject merchandise have declined over the life of the order: in 1985,

import volumes of brass sheet and strip exceeded 20 million pounds;

whereas, in 1998 import volumes were well under 1 million pounds. In

addition, as noted above, OBV does not negate the statistics which show

that OBV's import volumes of the subject merchandise decreased

significantly during the life of the order. Therefore, the Department

preliminarily determines that import volumes of the subject merchandise

decreased significantly after the issuance of the order.

Normally, as per (c) of section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin (a situation in which dumping is eliminated after the issuance

of the order and import volumes for the subject merchandise declined

significantly), the Department would determine that dumping is likely

to recur if the order is revoked. Nonetheless, in the instant case, the

Department has decided to consider other relevant information and

arguments, which OBV provides to the Department in its substantive

response.

First and foremost, the Department agrees with OBV's contention

that the acquisition of American Brass makes OBV's position in the U.S.

market rather unique: OBV no longer has to dump in order to supply in

the U.S. market because its much bigger sister company, American Brass,

has more than adequate capacity to meet the demand in the U.S. market

for the subject merchandise. The fact that immediately after the

acquisition, imports of the subject merchandise fell to zero and stayed

zero until 1995, also buttresses the above notion that American Brass

basically took over OBV's exports of the subject merchandise.

Consequently, OBV's argument that it does not make sense for OBV to

jeopardize the economic well being of American Brass by undercutting

the prices of the subject merchandise in the U.S. by resuming dumping,

is persuasive. This point is especially relevant considering Outokumpu

OYJ spent hundreds of millions of dollars in purchasing and investing

in American Brass.

In addition, given the facts of this case, we believe that the zero

dumping margins calculated in the most recent reviews to be probative:

when OBV resumed exporting the subject merchandise to the United States

in 1996, it could export without dumping.24 This is contrary

to domestic interested parties' contention that OBV cannot export the

subject merchandise without dumping.

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

\24\ See footnote 3, for the Department's findings that OBV did

not dump during 1995-1996 and 1996-1997.

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

Considering all the relevant information and arguments provided by

OBV, the Department is convinced that American Brass bears the primary

responsibility of satisfying the U.S. customers and that OBV will play

a minor role by supplying only radiator strip at a normal price in the

U.S. market. Therefore, in conclusion, although import volumes of the

subject merchandise declined significantly after the issuance of the

order, since the two most recent administrative reviews indicate that

dumping of the subject merchandise has been eliminated, and since OBV

presents effective ``other relevant information and arguments''

explaining why it is unlikely that OBV would resume dumping in the

U.S., the Department preliminarily determines that recurrence of

dumping of brass sheet and strip from the Netherlands is not likely if

the order is 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.)

However, since the Department determined that dumping would not be

likely to recur, the question of magnitude of margin is moot.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

revocation of the antidumping duty order would not be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of

publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR

[[Page 46642]]

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held on October 20,

1999. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than October

11, 1999, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs,

which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed

not later than October 18, 1999. The Department will issue a notice of

final results of this sunset review, which will include the results of

its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than

December 28, 1999.

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

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

Dated: August 20, 1999.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-22198 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P