Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Sugar From France, Belgium and Germany

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-078; A-423-077; A-428-082]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Sugar From France,

Belgium and Germany

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Sugar from

France, Belgium and Germany.

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

SUMMARY: On October 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping findings on

sugar from France, Belgium and Germany (63 FR 52683) pursuant to

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

the bases of the notices of intent to participate and substantive

comments filed on behalf of the domestic industry, as well as

inadequate responses (in these cases, no responses) from respondent

interested parties, the Department determined to conduct expedited

reviews. As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that

revocation of the antidumping findings would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the

Final Results of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith or Melissa G. Skinner,

Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution

Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202)

482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

These reviews were conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of

the Act. The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews

are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'')

Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516

(March 20, 1998) (``Sunset Regulations''). Guidance on methodological

or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset

reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies

Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping

and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16,

1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

The merchandise subject to these antidumping findings is sugar,

both raw and refined, with the exception of specialty sugars, from

France, Belgium and Germany. The order on sugar from France excludes

homeopathic sugar pellets meeting the following criteria: (1) composed

of 85 percent sucrose and 15 percent lactose; (2) have a polished,

matte appearance, and more uniformly porous than domestic sugar cubes;

(3) produced in two sizes of 2 mm and 3.8 mm in diameter.1

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

\1\ See Sugar from France; Final Results of Changed

Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Revocation

in Part of Antidumping Finding, 61 FR 40609 (August 5, 1996).

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

The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)

subheadings: 1701.1100, 1701.1101, 1701.1102, 1701.1103, 1701.1105,

1701.1110, 1701.1120, 1701.1150, 1701.1200, 1701.1201, 1701.1202,

1701.1205, 1701.1210, 1701.1250, 1701.9105, 1701.9110, 1701.9120,

1701.9121, 1701.9122, 1701.9130, 1701.9900, 1701.9901, 1701.9902,

1701.9905, 1701.9910, 1701.9950, 1702.9005, 1702.9010, 1702.9020,

1702.9030, 1702.9031, 1702.9032, 2106.9011, 2106.9012, 2106.9042,

2106.9044, and 2106.9046. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes only. They are not determinative of

the products subject to the orders. The written description remains

dispositive.

These reviews cover all manufacturers and exporters of sugar from

France, Belgium and Germany.

Background

On October 1, 1998, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the

antidumping findings on sugar from France, Belgium and Germany (63 FR

52683), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received

a Notice of Intent to Participate for each of these findings from The

United States Beet Sugar Association and The United States Cane Sugar

Refiners' Association (``the Associations'') on October 16, 1998,

within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. The Associations claimed interested party status under

section 771(9)(E) of the Act as a trade association whose members

produce sugar in the United States. We received a complete substantive

response from the Associations on November 2, 1998, within the 30-day

deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section

351.218(d)(3)(i), for each of these findings. In each of the

substantive responses, the Associations claimed interested party status

under subsections 771(9)(C) and 771(9)(E) & (G)(i-iii) of the Act. We

did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested

party in these sunset proceedings. As a result, pursuant to section

751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and our regulations (19 CFR

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2)), the Department determined to conduct

expedited reviews.

Determination

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

conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping findings would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in

making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-

average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent

reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the

period before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping

finding, and shall provide to the International Trade

[[Page 5639]]

Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping

likely to prevail if the finding is revoked.

The Department's determinations concerning continuation or

recurrence of dumping and magnitude of margin are discussed below. In

addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or recurrence

of dumping and the magnitude of 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.3.

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).

The antidumping findings on sugar from France, Belgium, and Germany

were published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 79-167 (44

FR 33878, June 13, 1979). Since that time, the Department has conducted

a number of administrative reviews on each of these findings but found

there were no shipments during the periods of review.2 The

findings remain in effect for all imports of the subject merchandise

from France, Belgium and Germany.

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

\2\ See Sugar from France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of

Germany; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping

Finding, 46 FR 22778 (April 21, 1981); Sugar from France, Belgium

and the Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of Administrative

Review of Antidumping Finding, 47 FR 3399 (January 25, 1982); Sugar

from France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany; Final

Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 48 FR 1786

(January 14, 1983); and Sugar from France, Belgium and the Federal

Republic of Germany; Final Results of Administrative Review of

Antidumping Finding, 49 FR 43738 (October 31, 1984).

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

In its substantive responses, the Associations argue that the

actions (the cessation of exports of sugar to the U.S.) taken by

French, Belgian and German producers and exporters of sugar during the

life of these findings indicate that ``revocation of the antidumping

and countervailing duty orders on sugar would likely lead to the

recurrence of dumping and of a countervailable subsidy'' (see November

2, 1998, Substantive Responses of the Associations at 2). With respect

to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the

issuance of these findings, the Associations assert that, as documented

in the final results of reviews reached by the Department, dumping

levels have remained constant throughout the life of the findings, with

margins of 102 percent for French producers and exporters, 103 percent

for Belgian producers and exporters and 121 percent for German

producers and exporters.

With respect to whether there has been a cessation of imports of

the subject merchandise, the Associations stated that, soon after the

issuance of the findings, sugar imports from France, Belgium and

Germany ceased. The Department confirmed that there were no shipments

of subject merchandise from any of the three countries since the late

1970's.3

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

\3\ See Sugar from France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of

Germany; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping

Finding, 46 FR 22778 (April 21, 1981); Sugar from France, Belgium

and the Federal Republic of Germany; Final Results of Administrative

Review of Antidumping Finding, 47 FR 3399 (January 25, 1982); Sugar

from France, Belgium and the Federal Republic of Germany; Final

Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 48 FR 1786

(January 14, 1983); and Sugar from France, Belgium and the Federal

Republic of Germany; Final Results of Administrative Review of

Antidumping Finding, 49 FR 43738 (October 31, 1984) in which the

Department found no shipments by any of the companies reviewed.

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

We find that the cessation of imports after the issuance of the

findings is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or

recurrence of dumping. Furthermore, deposit rates above de minimis

levels continue in effect for all shipments of the subject merchandise

from each of the three countries. As discussed in Section II.A.3. of

the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-

64, if imports cease after the order is issued, we may reasonably

assume that exporters could not sell in the United States without

dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume

dumping. Therefore, absent argument and evidence to the contrary, given

that shipments of the subject merchandise ceased soon after the

issuance of the findings, and that dumping margins continue to exist,

the Department, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin, determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the

findings were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

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

normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in

the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for

companies not specifically investigated, or for companies that did not

begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department

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

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

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

margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption

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

Bulletin.)

In these cases, Treasury published country-wide weighted-average

dumping margins for each of the three findings. The rates established

were 102 percent for all exports from France, 103 percent for all

exports from Belgium and 121 percent for all exports from Germany (44

FR 8949, February 12, 1979).

In its substantive response, the Associations state that the

dumping margins for each of these findings are likely to be at least as

high as the first margins calculated at the time of the original

investigation. In fact, the Associations project, based on current U.S.

and EU pricing (which is uniform in all EU countries), a dumping margin

of 263 percent ad valorem would prevail if the findings were

revoked.4

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

\4\ The Associations also project, on a constructed value basis,

a dumping margin of 153.73 percent from France, 152.07 percent from

Belgium and 220.54 percent from Germany. See November 2, 1998,

Substantive Responses of the Associations, at 21 and 22.

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

The Department finds that the country-wide weighted-averaged

margins calculated in the original investigations are probative of how

French, Belgian and German producers and exporters of sugar would act

if the findings were revoked. However, with respect to the projected

dumping

[[Page 5640]]

margins calculated by the Associations, we note that the SAA at 890-891

provides that, only in the most extraordinary circumstances, will the

Department rely on dumping margins other than those it calculated and

published in its prior determinations. The Sunset Regulations at 19 CFR

351.218(e)(2)(i) explain that ``extraordinary circumstances'' may be

considered by the Department in the context of a full sunset review,

where the substantive responses from both domestic and respondent

interested parties are adequate. In these cases, however, the

Department determined to conduct expedited sunset reviews because the

respondents did not submit any substantive responses to the notice of

initiation. Thus, in light of the inadequate responses, the Department

will not consider whether, in these sunset reviews, it should rely on

margins other than the rates from the original investigations.

Therefore, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine

that the original margins calculated by Treasury are probative of the

behavior of the French, Belgian and German producers and exporters of

sugar if the findings were revoked. We will report to the Commission

the country-wide margins contained in the Final Results of Review

section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation

of the antidumping findings would be likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated below:

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

Margin

Manufacturers/exporters (percent)

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

All French Manufacturers/Exporters........................... 102

All Belgian Manufacturers/Exporters.......................... 103

All German Manufacturers/Exporters........................... 121

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

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility

concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under

APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations.

Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or

conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to

comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable

violation.

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

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

Dated: January 29, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-2672 Filed 2-3-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P