64 FR 48372 September 3, 1999
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Top-of-the-Stove
Stainless Steel Cookware From Taiwan
[C-583-604]
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Top-of-the-
Stove Stainless Steel Cookware from Taiwan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty
order on top-of-the-stove stainless steel cookware from Taiwan (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 and an
adequate substantive response filed on behalf of domestic interested
parties and an inadequate response (in this case, no response) from
respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct an
expedited review. As a result of this review, the Department finds that
revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net
countervailable subsidy and the nature of the subsidy are identified in
the Final Results of Review section of to this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darla D. Brown or Melissa G. Skinner,
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 or (202)
482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1999.
Statute and Regulations:
This review was 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 this countervailing duty order is top-
of-the-stove stainless steel cookware (``cookware'') from Taiwan. The
subject merchandise is all non-electric cooking ware of stainless steel
which may have one or more layers of aluminum, copper or carbon steel
for more even heat distribution. The subject merchandise includes
skillets, frying pans, omelette pans, saucepans, double boilers, stock
pots, dutch ovens, casseroles, steamers, and other stainless steel
vessels, all for cooking on stove top burners, except tea kettles and
fish poachers.
Excluded from the scope of the orders are stainless steel oven ware
and stainless steel kitchen ware. ``Universal pan lids'' are not within
the scope of the order (57 FR 57420, December 4, 1992).
Cookware is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) item numbers 7323.93.00 and 9604.00.00. The HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and Customs purposes only. The written
description remains dispositive.
History of the Order
The countervailing duty order on cookware from Taiwan was published
in the Federal Register on January 20, 1987 (52 FR 2141).
In the original investigation of cookware from Taiwan, the
Department determined the following four programs conferred
countervailable export subsidies:
(1) Export Loss Reserve--0.001 percent ad valorem;
(2) 25 Percent Income Tax Ceiling for Big Trading Companies--0.010
percent ad valorem;
(3) Over-Rebate of Duty Drawback on Imported Materials Physically
Incorporated in Export Merchandise--2.128 percent ad valorem; and
(4) Rebate of Import Duties and Indirect Taxes on Imported
Materials Not Physically Incorporated in Export Merchandise--0.002
percent ad valorem.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain
Stainless Steel Cooking Ware from Taiwan, 51 FR 42891(November 26,
1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48373]]
The Department determined that these four programs conferred a
bounty or grant, the net amount of which was calculated to be 2.14
percent ad valorem for all Taiwanese exporters/producers of cookware.
Since the original investigation, the Department has conducted no
administrative reviews of the order. The order, therefore, remains in
effect for all known manufacturers and exporters of the subject
merchandise from Taiwan.
Background
On February 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the countervailing duty order on cookware from Taiwan (64 FR 4840),
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice
of Intent to Participate on behalf of the Stainless Steel Cookware
Committee, whose current members are Regal Ware, Inc., All-Clad
Metalcrafters, Inc., and Vita Craft Corp. (collectively, the
``Committee''), on February 16, 1999, within the deadline specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Pursuant to section
771(9)(E) of the Act, the Committee claimed interested party status as
an association of U.S. manufacturers of a domestic like product. In
addition, the Committee's individual members claimed domestic
interested party status pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as
domestic producers of a like product. The Department received a
complete substantive response from the Committee on March 3, 1999,
within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under
section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a substantive response
from any respondent interested party. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an
expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
The Department determined that the sunset review of the
countervailing duty order on cookware from Taiwan 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 June 7,
1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the
final results of this review until not later than August 30, 1999, in
accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's
Republic of China, et al.: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results
of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 30305 (June 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of countervailable subsidies. Section 752(b) of the Act
provides that, in making this determination, the Department shall
consider the net countervailable subsidy determined in the
investigation and subsequent reviews, and whether any change in the
program which gave rise to the net countervailable subsidy has occurred
that is likely to affect that net countervailable subsidy. Pursuant to
section 752(b)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide to the
International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the net
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked. In
addition, consistent with section 752(a)(6), the Department shall
provide the Commission information concerning the nature of each
subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or
Article 6.1 of the 1994 WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures (``Subsidies Agreement'').
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable
subsidy likely to prevail if the order is revoked, and nature of the
subsidy are discussed below. In addition, the Committee's comments with
respect to each of these issues are addressed within the respective
sections below.
Continuation or Recurrence of a Countervailable Subsidy
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 III.A.2
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally
will determine that revocation of a countervailing duty order is likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy
where (a) a subsidy program continues, (b) a subsidy program has been
only temporarily suspended, or (c) a subsidy program has been only
partially terminated (see section III.A.3.a of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin). Exceptions to this policy are provided where a company has a
long record of not using a program (see section III.A.3.b of the Sunset
Policy Bulletin).
In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above,
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy where a
respondent interested party waives its participation in the sunset
review. Moreover, according to the guidance provided by the SAA, at
881, in a review of a countervailing duty order, when the foreign
government has waived participation, the Department shall conclude that
revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of a countervailable subsidy for all respondent interested
parties.\3\ In the instant review, the Department did not receive a
substantive response from the foreign government or from any other
respondent interested party. Pursuant to section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of
the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee asserted in its substantive response that Taiwanese
producers/exporters of cookware continue to receive countervailable
benefits from four programs administered by the GOT and found by the
Department in the original investigation to confer countervailable
subsidies. Although no administrative reviews have been conducted since
the imposition of the original countervailing duty order, the Committee
argued that it is not aware of any other Department determinations in
which these programs were found not countervailable. Therefore, the
Committee maintained that the Department should determine that
revocation of the countervailing duty order on cookware from Taiwan
would likely result in the continuation of a countervailable subsidy.
We agree with the Committee that the Taiwanese programs remain in
place. As noted above, in our final determination, the Department
determined that the programs in question conferred subsidies, the net
amount of which was calculated to be 2.14 percent ad valorem for
Taiwanese exporters/producers of cookware. The Department has
[[Page 48374]]
conducted no administrative reviews of this outstanding countervailing
duty order.
Given that the programs found to provide countervailable subsidies
continue to exist, the foreign government and other respondent parties
waived their right to participate in this review before the Department,
and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department
determines that it is likely that a countervailable subsidy will
continue if the order is revoked.
Net Countervailable Subsidy
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will
select a rate from the investigation as the net countervailable subsidy
likely to prevail if the order is revoked because that is the only
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters and foreign
governments without the discipline of an order or suspension agreement
in place. The Department noted that this rate may not be the most
appropriate rate if, for example, the rate was derived from subsidy
programs which were found in subsequent reviews to be terminated, if
there has been a program-wide change, or if the rate ignores a program
found to be countervailable in a subsequent administrative review. (See
section III.B.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) Additionally, where the
Department determined company-specific countervailing duty rates in the
original investigation, the Department normally will report to the
Commission company-specific rates from the original investigation;
where no company-specific rate was determined for a company, the
Department normally will provide to the Commission the country-wide or
``all others'' rate. (See section III.B.2 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin.)
In their substantive response, the Committee argued that the net
countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order on cookware from
Taiwan is revoked is the net subsidy determined in the original
investigation. Specifically, the Committee argued that the rate likely
to prevail if the order were revoked is 2.14 percent ad valorem. The
Committee pointed out that, because the rate determined in the original
investigation is the only calculated rate which reflects the behavior
of exporters without the discipline of the order in place, the
Department's policy provides that it normally will select this rate to
provide to the Commission.
As discussed in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department normally
will report to the Commission an original subsidy rate, as adjusted, to
take into account terminated programs, program-wide changes, and
programs found to be countervailable in subsequent reviews. We agree
with the Committee that the programs found to provide countervailable
subsidies continue to exist. Absent evidence or argument that there
have been any changes to the programs found to be countervailable in
the original investigation that would affect the net countervailable
subsidy, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department
determines that the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if
the order were revoked is 2.14 percent.
Nature of the Subsidy
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,
consistent with section 752(a)(6) of the Act, the Department will
provide information to the Commission concerning the nature of the
subsidy and whether it is a subsidy described in Article 3 or Article
6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. The Committee did not specifically
address this issue in their substantive response.
Because, in the original investigation, we found receipt of
benefits under each of the four programs to be contingent upon exports,
these programs fall within the definition of an export subsidy under
Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The net countervailable
subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked is 2.14 percent ad
valorem.
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: August 30, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23034 Filed 9-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P