Notice of Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Metal Calendar Slides From Japan., 9779-9781 [E6-2732]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9779-9781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2732]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-867]


Notice of Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Metal Calendar Slides From Japan.

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) has preliminarily 
determined that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to 
imports of metal calendar slides (MCS) from Japan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay, Dara Iserson, or 
Kimberley Hunt, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-0780, (202) 482-4052, or (202) 482-1272, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Period of Investigation

    The POI is April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005. This period 
corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month 
of filing of the Petition for Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Metal 
Calendar Slides from Japan, (June 29, 2005) (Petition) involving 
imports from a market economy, and is in accordance with the 
Department's regulations. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

Scope of Investigation

    For the purpose of this investigation, the products covered are 
MCS. The products covered in this investigation are ``V'' and/or ``U'' 
shaped MCS manufactured from cold-rolled steel sheets, whether or not 
left in black form, tin plated or finished as tin free steel (TFS), 
typically with a thickness from 0.19 mm to 0.23 mm, typically in 
lengths from 152 mm to 915 mm, typically in widths from 12 mm to 29 mm 
when the slide is lying flat and before the angle is pressed into the 
slide (although they are not typically shipped in this ``flat'' form), 
that are typically either primed to protect the outside of the slide 
against oxidization or coated with a colored enamel or lacquer for 
decorative purposes, whether or not stacked, and excluding paper and 
plastic slides. MCS are typically provided with either a plastic 
attached hanger or eyelet to hang and bind calendars, posters, maps or 
charts, or the hanger can be stamped from the metal body of the slide 
itself. These MCS are believed to be classified under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7326.90.1000 (Other 
articles of iron and steel: Forged or stamped; but not further worked: 
Other: Of tinplate). This HTSUS number is provided for convenience and 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection purposes. The written description of 
the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

Case History

    This investigation was initiated on July 19, 2005. See Notice of 
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Metal Calendar Slides 
from Japan, 70 FR 43122 (July 26, 2005) (Initiation Notice). The 
preliminary determination was published on February 1, 2006. See Notice 
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Metal 
Calendar Slides from Japan, 71 FR 5244 (February 1, 2006).
    Although critical circumstances were not alleged in Petition, 
Stuebing Automatic Machine Co. (Petitioner) has maintained since the 
inception of this investigation that there is a reasonable basis to 
believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist with regard to 
imports of MCS from Japan. See Petition at 35. In Petition, Petitioner 
requested that the Department monitor imports of MCS pursuant to 
section 351.206(g) of the Department's regulations. Id. In the 
initiation, the Department stated that it would monitor imports of MCS 
from Japan and would request that the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) compile information on an expedited basis regarding 
entries of the subject merchandise. See Initiation Notice.
    Respondent, Nishiyama Kinzoku Co., Ltd. (Nishiyama), in its 
response to the Department's December 7, 2005, supplemental 
questionnaire, submitted the volume and value of its monthly shipments 
to the United States for calendar years 2003 through 2005. See 
Nishyama's Supplemental Questionnaire Response (December 27,

[[Page 9780]]

2005) at Exhibit 25. On January 10, 2006, the Department placed CBP IM 
115 data covering the period of January 1, 2003 through October 31, 
2005 on the record of this investigation. See Memorandum from Dara 
Iserson, Case Analyst, through Thomas Gulgunn, Program Manager, to the 
File: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Metal Calendar Slides from 
Japan: The Placing of U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection IM-
115 Data on the Record, (January 10, 2006) (IM 115 Memo). On January 
19, 2006, petitioner alleged that critical circumstances exist with 
respect to imports of MCS from Japan. See Petitioners' Comments on 
Calculation Issues (January 19, 2006) at 17.

Comments of the Parties

    Petitioner states that the record clearly demonstrates that 
shipments and imports surged during the post-Petition period (i.e., 
June-December 2005) when compared to the pre-Petition period (i.e., 
January-June 2005). See Petitioner's Comments on Calculation Issues 
(January 19, 2006) at 17. Petitioner claims that the IM 115 Memo 
demonstrates that imports were more than 25 percent greater in the 
post-Petition period in comparison to the pre-Petition period based on 
CBP's IM115 data. Id. Additionally, petitioner states that Nishiyama's 
shipment data shows an increase of more than 25 percent based on pieces 
and value. Id. (citing Nishiyama's Supplemental Questionnaire Response 
(December 27, 2005) at Exhibit 25). Petitioner states that these 
increases clearly meet the Department's standards for determining that 
imports were massive within a relatively short period.

Analysis

    Section 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that 
critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe 
or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material 
injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of 
the subject merchandise; or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose 
account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that 
the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair 
value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such 
sales; and, (B) there have been massive imports of the subject 
merchandise over a relatively short period.
    Section 351.206(h)(1) of the Department's regulations provides 
that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have 
been ``massive,'' the Department normally will examine: (i) The volume 
and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of 
domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, section 
351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that an increase 
in imports of 15 percent during the ``relatively short period'' of time 
may be considered ``massive.'' Section 351.206(i) of the Department's 
regulations defines ``relatively short period'' as normally being the 
period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 
petition is filed) and ending at least three months later. The 
Department's regulations also provide, however, that if the Department 
finds that importers, exporters, or producers had reason to believe, at 
some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding 
was likely, the Department may consider a period of not less than three 
months from that earlier time.
    In determining whether the relevant statutory criteria have been 
satisfied, we considered: (i) Exporter-specific shipment data submitted 
in Nishiyama's December 27, 2005, response; (ii) the CBP IM 115 data 
the Department placed on the record on January 10, 2006, and (iii) the 
ITC preliminary injury determination.
    To determine whether there is a history of injurious dumping of the 
merchandise under investigation, in accordance with section 
733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department normally considers evidence 
of an existing antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise in the 
United States or elsewhere to be sufficient. See Preliminary 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Ukraine and Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 2000). With 
regard to imports of MCS from Japan, the petitioners make no specific 
mention of a history of dumping for Japan. We are not aware of any 
antidumping duty order in the United States or in any other country on 
MCS from Japan. For this reason, the Department does not find a history 
of injurious dumping of the subject merchandise from Japan pursuant to 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act.
    To determine whether the person by whom, or for whose account, the 
merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter 
was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and 
that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales in 
accordance with Section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Department 
normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for EP sales, or 15 
percent or more for CEP transactions, sufficient to impute knowledge of 
dumping. See e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's 
Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (October 19, 2001).
    For Nishiyama, we determine that there is not a sufficient basis to 
find that the importer should have known that the exporter was selling 
the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was 
likely to be material injury by reason of such sales pursuant to 
section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act because the calculated preliminary 
margin for Nishiyama's EP sales, 7.68 percent, was less than 25 
percent. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value: Metal Calendar Slides from Japan, 71 FR 5244 (February 1, 
2006). Nishayama did not have any CEP sales during this period. Because 
the knowledge criterion has not been met, we will not address the 
second criterion of whether imports were massive in the comparison 
period when compared to the base period.
    Regarding the companies subject to the ``all others'' rate, it is 
the Department's normal practice to conduct its critical circumstances 
analysis for these companies based on the experience of investigated 
companies. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 
9741 (March 4, 1997). However, the Department does not automatically 
extend an affirmative critical circumstances determination to companies 
covered by the ``all others'' rate. See Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Japan, 64 FR 30574 and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum, at Comment 14 (June 8, 1999) (Stainless Steel from Japan). 
Instead, the Department considers the traditional critical 
circumstances criteria with respect to the companies covered by the 
``all others'' rate. Consistent with Stainless Steel from Japan, the 
Department has, in this case, applied the traditional critical 
circumstances criteria to the ``all others'' category for the 
antidumping investigation of MCS from Japan.
    The dumping margin for the ``all others'' category in the instant 
case, 7.68 percent, does not exceed the 25 percent threshold necessary 
to impute knowledge of dumping. Therefore, we find that there is no 
reasonable basis to

[[Page 9781]]

determine that importer knew or should have known that the exporter was 
selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that 
there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales.

Conclusion

    Given the analysis discussed above, we preliminarily determine 
critical circumstances do not exist for imports of MCS from Japan. We 
will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances for 
MCS from Japan when we make our final dumping determination in this 
investigation, on April 10, 2006 (unless extended).

International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the 
International Trade Commission of our determination.
    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 
733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 21, 2006.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-2732 Filed 2-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S