[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67870-67871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31422]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-357-802]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Light-Walled Welded
Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing From Argentina
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited Sunset Review: Light-
walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina
(64 FR 23596) 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
interested parties 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: Kathryn B. McCormick 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-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 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'') and 19 C.F.R. Part 351 (1998)
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'').
Scope
The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is light-
walled welded carbon steel tubing of rectangular (including square)
cross-section, having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch, from
Argentina. The subject merchandise is classifiable under item
7306.60.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience
and U.S. customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
This review covers imports from all producers and exporters of
light-walled welded carbon steel tubing from Argentina.
History of the Order
In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988,
through June 30, 1988, the Department determined a margin of 56.26
percent for U.S. imports of subject merchandise from
Argentina.1 Since the issuance of the order, the Department
has not conducted any administrative reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value:
Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Argentina,
54 FR 13913 (April 6, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on light-walled welded carbon steel tubing from
Argentina (64 FR 23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of
California Steel and Tube, Hannibal Industries Inc., Maruichi American
Corporation, Searing Industries, Leavitt Tube, Vest Inc., and Western
Tube and Conduit (collectively ``domestic interested parties''), within
the applicable deadline (May 18, 1999) specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The domestic interested
parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the
Act as U.S. producers of a domestic like product. We received a
complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties on
June 2, 1998, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset
Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). Many of the domestic
interested parties are members of the Committee on Pipe and Tube
Imports, the trade association on whose behalf the original petition
was filed. 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.
In accordance with 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). On
September 7, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review of
the antidumping order on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel
tubing from Argentina is extraordinarily complicated and extended the
time limit for completion of the final results of this review until not
later than November 29, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B)
of the Act.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year
Reviews, 64 FR 48579 (September 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty 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 determination concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed
below. Additionally, the domestic interested 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
[[Page 67871]]
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.2). In addition, the Department indicated that normally it
will determine that revocation of an antidumping duty 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 considering the guidance on likelihood cited above,
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.
In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties
argue that revocation of the subject order would have the effect of
resumption of sales at less than fair value by margins equivalent to or
greater than those found in the original investigation and subsequent
reviews (see June 2, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic
interested parties at 3).
With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased
after the issuance of the order, the domestic interested parties assert
that since the issuance of the order, imports of subject tubing from
Argentina into the United States have almost disappeared entirely. Id.
Because imports of subject merchandise from Argentina into the United
States have nearly ceased, the domestic interested parties argue that
there is a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping should this
order be terminated (see June 2, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic
interested parties at page 3). Moreover, the continued dumping at 56.26
percent is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Id.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department
considered the volume of imports before and after the 1989 issuance of
the order. The statistics on imports of the subject merchandise cited
by the domestic interested parties and those examined by the Department
(U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports), demonstrate that imports of the
subject merchandise have ceased since the issuance of the order.
Additionally, the margin of 56.26 percent ad valorem, the estimate from
the original investigation, has continued throughout the history of the
order.
The Department finds that the cessation of imports after the
issuance of the order is highly probative of the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping.3 Given that imports
of subject merchandise have ceased, that an above de minimis deposit
rate remains in effect for all imports, that respondent interested
parties have waived their right to participate in this review, and
absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines
that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Department of Commerce Policy Bulletin, Policies Regarding
the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders quoting the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
Statement of Administrative Action (citation omitted), 63 FR 18871,
18872 (April 16, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states 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 their substantive response, the domestic interested parties
assert that, because imports of subject merchandise from Argentina into
the U.S. ceased after the issuance of the order, the Department should
find the magnitude of the margin to be 56.26 percent, the margin from
the original investigation (see June 2, 1999 Substantive Response of
domestic interested parties at 3).
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'
argument concerning the choice of the margin to report to the
Commission. Since there have been no administrative reviews of the
order, the rate from the original investigation is the only rate
available to the Department. Therefore, we determine that the margin
determined in the original investigation is probative of the behavior
of producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Argentina if the
order was revoked.
Final Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of
the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margin listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Producer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Argentinian producers/exporters....................... 56.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: November 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31422 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P