Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of full sunset review: gray portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico.
On February 28, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico (65 FR 10468) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received comments from both domestic and respondent interested parties. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of this order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.
July 3, 2000.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eun W. Cho or Carole Showers, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1698 or (202) 482-3217, respectively. Start Printed Page 41050
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”), and in 19 CFR part 351 (1999) in general. 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”).
On February 28, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico pursuant to the Act. In our preliminary results, we determined that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. In addition, we preliminarily determined that the following margins are likely to prevail for respective manufactures/exporters if the order were revoked: CEMEX, S.A. (“CEMEX”) “ 95.44 percent; Apasco, S.A. de C.V. (“Apasco”) “ 53.26 percent; Cementos Hidalgo, S.C.L. “ 3.69 percent; and all others “ 59.91 percent.
Subsequent to the issuance of our preliminary results, on March 15, 2000, the Department issued the final results of the administrative review covering the period from August 1, 1997, through July 31, 1998 (65 FR 13943). Information included in the latest final results of the administrative review is reflected in our final determination.
On April 10, 2000, we received case briefs from both domestic and respondent interested parties within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). We also received rebuttal comments from both parties on April 18, 2000, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(d). 
Scope of Review
The products covered by this order include gray portland cement and clinker (“portland cement”) from Mexico. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than of being ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number 2523.29 and cement clinker is currently classifiable under HTS item number 2523.10. Gray portland cement has also been entered under HTS item number 2523.90 as other hydraulic cements. In its only scope ruling, the Department determined that masonry cement is not within the scope of the order. The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. Our written description of the scope of the proceeding is dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated June 27, 2000, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce Building.
In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/importadmin/records/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.
Final Results of Review
We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on portland cement from Mexico would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.Start Signature
Dated: June 27, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
1. On April 13, 2000, the domestic interested parties requested an extension of the deadline for filing rebuttal comments to the case briefs. The Department extended the deadline until April 18, 2000, for all participants eligible to file rebuttal comments.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 00-16792 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P