[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16899-16901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8625]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-357-405]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barbed Wire and
Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barbed Wire
and Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on
barbed wire and barbless fencing wire from Argentina (63 FR 66527)
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
substantive comments filed on behalf of the domestic industry and
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 antidumping order 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 Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 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 antidumping order is barbed wire
and barbless fencing wire from Argentina, which is currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number
7313.00.00. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and U.S.
Customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.
This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of
barbed wire and barbless fencing wire from Argentina.
[[Page 16900]]
Background
On December 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of
the antidumping order on barbed wire and barbless fencing wire from
Argentina (63 FR 66527), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of
Davis Wire Corporation, Keystone Steel & Wire Company and Oklahoma
Steel & Wire Company, Inc. (``domestic interested parties'') on
December 16, 1998, within the deadline specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Each company claimed
interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a
domestic producer of barbed wire. In addition, Keystone Steel & Wire
Company indicated that it is the successor-in-interest to the original
petitioner, Forbes Steel & Wire Corporation, and Davis Wire Corporation
indicated that it is the successor-in-interest to one of the companies
that supported the original petition in this case, CF&I Steel
Corporation. Further, Oklahoma Steel & Wire Company, Inc. indicated
that it supported the original petition filed by Forbes Steel & Wire
Corporation in 1984. We received a complete substantive response from
the domestic interested parties on January 4, 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 to this proceeding. 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.
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping order 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 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 determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed
below. In addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the 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 bases for
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on
an order-wide basis (see section II.A.3). In addition, the Department
indicated that normally it 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).
In addition to guidance on likelihood provided in the Sunset Policy
Bulletin and legislative history, section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall determine that revocation of an
order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping where
a respondent interested party waives its participation in the sunset
review. In the instant review, the Department did not receive a
response from any respondent interested party. Pursuant to section
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver
of participation.
The antidumping duty order on barbed wire and barbless fencing wire
from Argentina was published in the Federal Register on November 13,
1985 (50 FR 46808). No administrative reviews of this case have been
conducted by the Department.1 The order remains in effect
for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department did publish the following notice prior to the
establishment of the antidumping duty order. See Barbed Wire and
Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina: Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value; 50 FR 38563, September 23, 1985.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties argue
that the likely effect of revocation of the order against barbed wire
from Argentina is that dumping would recur (see January 4, 1999
Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested Parties at 2). With
respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the
issuance of the order, the domestic interested parties, citing American
Iron and Steel Institute data, state that imports of barbed wire from
Argentina disappeared from the U.S. market during the course of the
original antidumping investigation, and that there have been no imports
at all since 1986 (see January 4, 1999 Substantive Response of the
Domestic Interested Parties at 2). Further, with respect to whether
dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of
the order, the domestic interested parties state that the dumping
margin has remained at 69.02 percent ad valorem during the life of the
order (see January 4, 1999 Substantive Response of the Domestic
Interested Parties at 2).
In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argued that the
Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping
would resume if the order were to be revoked because (1) shipments of
subject merchandise ceased following the imposition of the order and
have not resumed, (2) dumping margins have existed for all known
exporters of the subject merchandise during the entire life of the
order, and (3) there are no significant barriers for new or former
suppliers to enter the market.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department
considered the volume of imports of the subject merchandise before and
after issuance of the order. The statistics on imports of the subject
merchandise between 1980 and 1997, provided by the domestic interested
parties and confirmed by U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, indicate
that imports of the subject merchandise ceased after 1986 and have not
resumed.
As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, ``[i]f imports cease after
the order is issued, it is reasonable to 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.'' Imports of barbed
wire and barbless fencing wire from Argentina ceased soon after the
issuance of the order. The Department finds that the cessation of
imports after the
[[Page 16901]]
issuance of the order 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 Argentina.2 Therefore, absent argument and
evidence to the contrary, given that shipments of the subject
merchandise ceased soon after the issuance of the order, that dumping
margins continue to exist, and that respondent interested parties have
waived their right to participate in this review before the Department,
we determine that, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, dumping is likely to continue or recur if the order were
revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Barbed wire and Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 50 FR 38563
(September 23, 1985) and Antidumping Duty Order: Barbed Wire and
Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina, 50 FR 46808 (November 13,
1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.)
The Department, in its final determination of sales at less than
fair value, published a weighted-average dumping margin for one
Argentine manufacturer/exporter, Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros
S.A. (``Acindar'') (50 FR 38563, September 23, 1985). The Department
also published an ``all others'' rate in this same Federal Register
notice. With respect to duty absorption findings, because there have
been no completed administrative reviews of the order, the Department
has not had the opportunity to address the issue of duty absorption.
In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties state
that the weighted-average dumping margin calculated by the Department
for Acindar in the original investigation is the dumping margin likely
to prevail if the order were revoked (see January 4, 1999 Substantive
Response of the Domestic Interested Parties at 4). The domestic
interested parties make this statement because this order has never
undergone an administrative review and the dumping margin from the
original investigation provides the best evidence of the likely dumping
margin in the absence of the order.
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'
argument concerning the choice of the margin rate to report to the
Commission. An examination of the margin history of the order as well
as an examination of import statistics of the subject merchandise, as
provided in U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Statistics data, confirms
that dumping margins have existed throughout the life of the order and
that imports of the subject merchandise ceased soon after its
imposition.
The Department finds the margin from the original investigation is
the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters
without the discipline of the order. Therefore, consistent with the
Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine that the margin calculated in the
Department's original investigation is probative of the behavior of
Argentine producers and exporters of barbed wire and barbless fencing
wire if the order were revoked. We will report to the Commission the
company-specific and ``all others'' rate from the original
investigation contained in the Final Results of Review section of this
notice.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping order would likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acindar.................................................... 69.02
All Others................................................. 69.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: April 1, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-8625 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P