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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-122-601]

Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and Strip

From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

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

Sheet and Strip from Canada.

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

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 Canada (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 domestic interested parties 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 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: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner,

Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade

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

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050 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'').

Scope

Imports covered by this order are shipments of brass sheet and

strip, other than leaded or tinned, from Canada. The chemical

composition of the subject merchandise is defined in the Copper

Development Association (C.D.A.) 200 Series or the Unified Numbering

System (U.N.S.) C2000 Series. This order does not cover products the

chemical compositions of which are defined by other C.D.A. or U.N.S.

series. In physical dimensions, the products covered by this order have

a solid rectangular cross section over 0.006 inches (0.15 millimeters)

through 0.188 inches (4.8 millimeters) in finished thickness or gauge,

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

to-length products are included. The merchandise is currently

classifiable under item numbers 7409.21.00 and 7409.29.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTS''). The HTS item

numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The

written description remains dispositive.

On February 28, 1990, the Department determined that Arrowhead

Metals Limited (``Arrowhead'') had officially gone out of business and,

therefore, would no longer be subject to the order (55 FR 39682,

September 28, 1990). On November 8, 1991, the Department revoked the

order with regard to Ratcliffs/Severn Limited (``Ratcliffs'') (56 FR

57317, November 8, 1991). Finally, on May 13, 1992, the Department

determined that Wolverine Tube, Inc. (``Wolverine'') had acquired the

production facilities of Noranda Metals, Inc. (``Noranda'') and,

therefore, had become the successor-in-interest to Noranda (57 FR

20460, May 13, 1992). Only Arrowhead and Noranda were involved in the

original investigation. Due to the revocations of the order for

Arrowhead and Ratcliffs, Wolverine is currently the only company

subject to the order.

History of the Order

The antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada was

published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1217).

During the original investigation, the Department calculated a dumping

margin of 2.51 percent for Arrowhead and 11.54 percent for Noranda. The

Department also established an all others rate of 8.10 percent.

Since that time the Department has conducted eight administrative

reviews of this order.6 On May 13, 1992, the Department

determined that Wolverine was the successor-in-interest to Noranda (57

FR 20460). As discussed in the section above, the only known producer/

exporter currently subject to the order is Wolverine. The Department

notes that, to date, there have been no duty absorption findings in

this proceeding.

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

\6\ See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 55 FR 31414 (August 2,

1990); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results and

Revocation, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56

FR 57317 (November 8, 1991); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460

(May 13, 1992) (``1990 Review Final''); Brass Sheet and Strip from

Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 60

FR 49582 (September 26, 1995); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada;

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 46618

(September 4, 1996); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16759

(April 8, 1997); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 33037 (January 17,

1998); and Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To

Revoke Order in Part; issued on August 9, 1999, the expected date of

publication in the Federal Register is August 24, 1999.

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

Background

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

the antidumping duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada (64 FR

4840) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On February 16, 1999, the

Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of the

Heyco Metals, Inc., Hussey Copper Ltd., Olin Corporation-Brass Group,

Outokumpu American Brass, PMX Industries, Inc., Revere Copper Products,

Inc., the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers, the United Auto

[[Page 46643]]

Workers, and the United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC)

(collectively, ``the 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 (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. We received a

complete substantive response to the notice of initiation from the

domestic interested parties on March 3, 1999. We received a complete

substantive response on behalf of Wolverine on March 4, 1999. In its

substantive response, Wolverine, a Canadian producer of brass sheet and

strip, claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(A) of the

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

interested parties and Wolverine on March 12, 1999.

Using the Department's trade statistics, the United States Census

Bureau's IM146 Reports, and the information provided by Wolverine

concerning its exports to the United States, and the fact that

Wolverine is the only company still subject to the order, the

Department determined that Wolverine accounted for significantly more

than 50 percent of the value of total exports of the subject

merchandise over the five calendar years preceding the initiation of

the sunset review. Therefore, the Department determined that respondent

interested parties provided an adequate response to the notice of

initiation, and the Department determined to conduct a full (240 day)

sunset review in accordance with section 351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations.

The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping

duty order on brass sheet and strip from Canada is extraordinarily

complicated. 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). (See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) Therefore, on May 21,

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.1

The Department, therefore, intends to issue the final results of this

review not later than December 28, 1999.

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

\1\ 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(b) 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 likely to prevail

are discussed below. In addition, parties' comments with respect to

continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin

likely to prevail are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

Parties' Comments

In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties state

that it is highly likely that dumping would continue if the order were

revoked. (See Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested Parties

of March 3, 1999 at 31.) The domestic interested parties recognize

that, currently, only Wolverine is subject to the order.

With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise have

either fallen dramatically or ceased following imposition of the

antidumping duty order, the domestic interested parties argue that

imports of the subject merchandise from Canada declined significantly.

To illustrate this, the domestic interested parties state that from

1983 to 1985, the three years before imposition of the order, Canadian

imports of brass sheet and strip averaged 10.2 million pounds. However,

in 1987, the year immediately after the imposition of the order,

Canadian imports fell to 6.8 million pounds and only averaged

approximately 7 million pounds for the period from 1987 to 1989. (See

Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested Parties at 35-36.)

Additionally, the domestic interested parties argue that the

increase in the dumping margins for Arrowhead and Noranda in 1990

caused imports to fall from roughly 6 million pounds in 1989 to below 2

million pounds in 1990. The domestic interested parties also argue that

the only reason for the later reduction in Wolverine's margins (to de

minimis levels) was due to the fact that it was only selling modest

volumes of subject brass sheet and strip in the United States. (See

Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested Parties of March 3,

1999 at 36.) Finally, the domestic industry claims that imports of

brass sheet and strip from Canada have risen by 11 million pounds in

1998 and that they believe Wolverine resumed significant volumes and

dumping of exports of the subject merchandise to the United States in

the belief that revocation would occur in mid-1998.

In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argue that the

behavior of Canadian producers and exporters, specifically Wolverine,

indicates that commercially significant volumes of brass sheet and

strip cannot be sold in the United States without dumping.

Wolverine, in its substantive response of March 4, 1999, argues

that it is in a very unique position, as compared to other companies in

other sunset reviews of antidumping duty orders. The reason for this is

that, according to the company, the Department has found a de minimis

dumping margin for Wolverine in the preliminary and final results of

each administrative review conducted by the Department since the

1993.2 Furthermore, Wolverine argues that, were it not for

the Department's error in the final results of the 1996 administrative

review which resulted in a dumping margin in excess of de minimis, the

Department likely would have revoked the order with respect to

Wolverine in the final results. Between the preliminary results of the

1996 administrative review, in which the

[[Page 46644]]

Department preliminarily determined to revoke the order with respect to

Wolverine, and the final results of that review, the Department

collected no additional information that would cause the preliminary

results to change and, therefore, according to Wolverine, the order

should have been revoked.

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

\2\ See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Preliminary Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 1560 (January 22,

1996); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 46618 (September 4,

1996); Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 16759 (April 8, 1997);

Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 6039 (February 8,

1999). In April 1999, the Department granted Wolverine's request to

terminate the 1993 administrative review (63 FR 23269). In the final

results of the 1996 administrative review, the Department calculated

an above de minimis margin for Wolverine. However, the final results

of the 1996 administrative review are currently being reviewed by a

NAFTA Dispute Resolution Panel.

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

Furthermore, Wolverine provided, in the course of this sunset

review, additional information in support of its proposition that

dumping is unlikely to resume if Wolverine were revoked from the order.

Wolverine asserts that it services small customers that require small

quantities of a variety of products and that its ``market niche'' in

North America appears to be largely saturated. Wolverine argues that

its production capacity is limited and that it has no excess capacity

to use to manufacture additional subject merchandise for export to the

United States. In addition, Wolverine contends that its budgeting and

marketing processes are focused on the development of non-subject

merchandise and increasing Canadian sales. Lastly, Wolverine asserts

that its sales process incorporates monitoring to ensure against future

dumping.

In rebuttal, the domestic interested parties argue that Wolverine

has shipped very small volumes of subject merchandise to the United

States over the past several years and that these volumes are far below

the total volume of imports of subject merchandise from Canada around

the time of the imposition of the order. The domestic interested

parties further argue that the Department's preliminary determination

in the 1996 administrative review should not be relied upon in making

sunset determinations. Furthermore, the domestic interested parties

argue that the 0.67 percent dumping margin found in the 1996

administrative review should stand, despite the Department's admission

of error in the calculation of Wolverine's dumping margin.

In summation, the domestic interested parties argue that the

Department should conclude that revocation of the Canadian antidumping

duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.

The domestic interested parties assert that both Noranda and Wolverine

persisted in dumping at increased rates for several years after the

order entered into force and Wolverine has managed to obtain de minimis

or zero dumping margins only in periods when it has had U.S. sales

volumes so low as to not be in commercial quantities. Because of this,

the domestic interested parties argue that the Department should find a

likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.

In its rebuttal comments, Wolverine argue that it has sold and

continues to sell commercially meaningful and increasing volumes of

subject merchandise in the United States without dumping. Wolverines

further argues that the Department has determined, in previous

administrative reviews, that Wolverine's sales in the United States are

of commercially meaningful volumes. Wolverine also asserts that 13-year

old dumping margins from the investigation in this proceeding are

logically, factually, and legally irrelevant. Wolverine asserts that

prior to its acquisition of Noranda's Fergus facility in 1988, it

(Wolverine) had no legal or managerial responsibility for the Fergus

plant. Thus, Noranda's pricing policies and costs of production,

presumably reflected in the Department's calculation of Noranda's

dumping margin in the investigation, have no relevance to Wolverine's

dumping margins or the Department's sunset determination, with respect

to likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.

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. 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 a 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. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).

As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, the existence of dumping

margins after the order, or the cessation of imports after the order,

is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

dumping. If companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order

in place, it is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the

discipline were revoked. If imports cease after the order is issued, it

is reasonable to assume that the exporters could not sell in the United

States without dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would

have to resume dumping.

On August 9, 1999, the Department issued its final results of the

1997 administrative review.3 In that determination, the

Department found an above de minimis dumping margin of 0.71 percent for

Wolverine. 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.

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

\3\ This determination was issued on August 9, 1999, however, it

has not yet been published. The expected date of publication in the

Federal Register is August 24, 1999.

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

With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased

following the imposition of the order, the Department has reviewed the

U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports, the final results and publicly ranged

import volumes from previous administrative reviews, and participants'

submissions in this sunset review. Based on these sources, we find that

imports of subject merchandise have existed throughout the life of the

order, and continue to exist.4 However, an examination of

this information demonstrates a significant decrease in the import

volumes of subject merchandise during the periods in which the

Department calculated de minimis dumping margins for Wolverine compared

with the periods in which Wolverine had significant dumping margins.

The Department finds that such a situation may indicate that Wolverine

was only able to eliminate dumping by significantly reducing its

exports of subject merchandise to the United States (see Memo to File,

Re: Import Volumes of Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada, dated August

19, 1999).

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

\4\ The Department notes, as stated in Brass Sheet and Strip

from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992), that there were no imports of

subject merchandise from Noranda/Wolverine during calendar year

1990.

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

Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of

dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of

the likelihood of continuation or recurrence

[[Page 46645]]

of dumping. A deposit rate above a de minimis level continues in effect

for imports of the subject merchandise from the only known Canadian

producer/exporter. Therefore, given that dumping has continued during

the life of the order, the Department preliminarily determines that

dumping is likely to continue if the order were revoked.

Because the Department is basing its likelihood determination on

the continued existence of above de minimis dumping margins and

continued imports of the subject merchandise, it is not necessary to

address parties comments concerning the reduction in import volumes of

the subject merchandise over the life of the order, the de minimis

dumping margins found by the Department in previous administrative

reviews, Wolverine's budgeting and marketing process, its market

demographics, or its sales monitoring program.

Magnitude of the Margin

Parties' Comments

In its substantive and rebuttal responses, the domestic interested

parties assert that a dumping margin of 25.49 percent, from the 1992

administrative review, is likely to prevail if the order were to be

revoked because it was calculated based upon the Department's first

analysis of Wolverine's data after Wolverine had taken over Noranda's

Fergus facility and because it is the highest margin calculated by the

Department for Wolverine. The domestic interested parties argue that in

the three year period before the filing of the petition (1983-1985),

imports of brass sheet and strip from Canada averaged 10.2 million

pounds annually. However, in the first full year following the

imposition of the order (1987), imports from Canada fell to 6.8 million

pounds. Since 1990, import volumes of the subject merchandise have

remained below 2 million pounds. The domestic interested parties

further argue that the de minimis margins obtained by Wolverine for the

calendar years 1995, 1996, and 1997, have only been achieved through a

substantial reduction in its exports of the subject merchandise.

The domestic interested parties claim, however, that in 1998,

imports of brass sheet and strip surged by 11 million pounds. It

asserts that Wolverine resumed significant volumes and dumping of

exports of the subject merchandise to the United States in the belief

that revocation would occur in mid-1998. Based on these factors, the

domestic interested parties assert that this apparent pattern of

behavior by Wolverine is indicative of the fact that Wolverine cannot

sell any commercially meaningful volumes of the subject merchandise in

the United States without dumping and, therefore, the report of a de

minimis margin to the Commission would be inappropriate.

Wolverine, in its substantive and rebuttal responses, argues that

the dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked is

zero. Wolverine asserts that it has demonstrated this to the Department

in four consecutive administrative reviews. Further, they argue that

the dumping margin established for Wolverine in the 1994 administrative

review was based on the best information available and is in no way

relevant to the dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were to

be revoked. In addition, the 21.32 percent dumping margin calculated

for Noranda and subsequently assigned to Wolverine in the 1990

administrative review also is inappropriate. Wolverine argues that

Noranda's pricing policies and costs of production, presumably

reflected in the Department's calculation of Noranda's dumping margin

in the original investigation and subsequent two administrative

reviews, have no relevance to Wolverine's dumping margins because

Wolverine had no affiliation with Noranda at the time the 21.32 percent

dumping margin was calculated.

Department's Determination

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it will

normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in

the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for

companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not

begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department

normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from

the investigation. (See section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)

Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated

margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption

determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin.)

The Department, in its final determination of sales at less than

fair value, published weighted-average dumping margins for two

producers/exporters of brass sheet and strip from Canada (51 FR 44319,

December 9, 1986). The Department also published an ``all others'' rate

in this determination. We note that, to date, the Department has not

issued any duty absorption findings in this case.

The Department disagrees with the domestic interested parties, in

part, concerning the dumping margin likely to prevail if the order were

to be revoked. The domestic interested parties' argument, that the

Department should use the 25.49 percent dumping margin from the 1992

administrative review because it is the first dumping margin calculated

after the Department made a successor-in-interest determination (and is

the highest dumping margin ever calculated in the proceeding) is

inconsistent with the Department's ``successorship'' finding.

In the 1990 administrative review, the Department examined

Wolverine's purchase of Noranda in order to make its ``successorship''

determination. See 1990 Review Final, 57 FR at 20461. At issue in

``successorship'' cases is the appropriate rate to be assigned to

entities affected by, for example, an acquisition of all or part of

another company's assets, a transfer of another company's corporate

control, or some other change which raises the questions of the

company's status in the proceeding. In determining the appropriate

rate, the Department examines the totality of circumstances. In the

1990 Review Final, therefore, after considering all of the information

on the record, the Department determined that Wolverine should receive

the same cash deposit rate as Noranda because Wolverine was essentially

the same business operation as Noranda. Specifically, the Department

found that production facilities, essential personnel, customers, and

management were transferred from Noranda to Wolverine without

interruption. Id. Because the Department has previously determined

that, at the time of the purchase of Noranda by Wolverine, there was no

change in the business operations of the company, the domestic

interested parties' argument that there is a distinction between

Wolverine and Noranda for the purposes of dumping margin calculations

provides insufficient reason for the Department to choose the ``first''

rate calculated for Wolverine as the dumping margin likely to prevail

if the order were to be revoked.

With respect to the decreases in import volumes during the life of

the order, the Department disagrees with the domestic industry's

interpretation and evaluation. After an examination of the record in

this proceeding as well as the submissions from the participants in

this sunset review, the Department found that Wolverine is currently

the only Canadian producer and/or exporter of the subject merchandise.

Therefore, the Department finds that it would be

[[Page 46646]]

unreasonable to compare the present import volumes of Wolverine with

the pre-order import volumes of two (or more) producers/exporters who

were subject to the order in 1987. If this comparison were made, the

Department would almost certainly find that total imports had decreased

over the life of the order because there are fewer producers/exporters

who are currently subject to the order. Because of this, the Department

believes that it is more appropriate to examine all available import

volumes for Wolverine (Noranda) over the life of the order.

With respect to the domestic interested parties' claims concerning

the surge in imports in 1998, the Department is not persuaded by its

argument. The Department agrees with Wolverine and the proprietary

argument that it has made concerning this purported surge. As a result

of the information concerning this increase in import volumes provided

by both the domestic industry and Wolverine, the Department

preliminarily finds that there was no surge in imports of subject

merchandise from Wolverine in calendar year 1998 (see Memo to File, Re:

1998 Import Volume Surge, dated August 19, 1999).

However, the Department also disagrees with Wolverine's argument

concerning the dumping margin likely to prevail. The Department finds

that the existence of dumping margins after the issuance of the order

is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

dumping. More importantly, a deposit rate above a de minimis level

continues in effect for imports of the subject merchandise from

Wolverine. Because a dumping margin above a de minimis level is

currently in effect and because imports of the subject merchandise

continue, we find the use of a zero dumping margin to be inappropriate

to report to the Commission.

Furthermore, Wolverine's argument implies that the Department

should report a more recently calculated dumping margin to the

Commission. The Department disagrees with Wolverine's basis for this

argument. According to the SAA at 890-91 and the House Report at 64,

declining (or no) dumping margins accompanied by steady or increasing

imports may indicate that companies do not have to dump in order to

maintain market share. As a result, decreasing margins may be more

representative of a company's behavior in the absence of the order. In

the instant case, however, the zero or de minimis dumping margins have

not been accompanied by steady or increasing imports. Instead, as noted

above, they have been associated with periods where Wolverine's imports

were significantly below its imports in prior periods.

Based on the above analysis, the Department finds the margin from

the original investigation is the only calculated rate that reflects

the behavior of producers and exporters without the discipline of the

order. Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we

preliminarily determine that the margin calculated in the Department's

original investigation is probative of the behavior of Canadian

producers and exporters of brass sheet and strip if the order were

revoked. We will report to the Commission the company-specific and all

others rates from the original investigation contained in the

Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.

Preliminary Results of Review

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

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

of dumping at the margins listed below: 5

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

\5\ On September 28, 1990, the Department acknowledged that

Arrowhead had gone out of business (see Brass Sheet and Strip From

Canada; Termination in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 55 FR 39682 (September 28, 1990).

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

Margin

Manufacturer/Exporter (percent)

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

Wolverine (formerly Noranda)............................... 11.54

All Others................................................. 8.10

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

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 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. 99-22199 Filed 8-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P