[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67879-67881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31423]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-533-502]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Certain Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes From India
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited Sunset Review: Certain
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from India.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from India (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 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 duty 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
(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'').
Scope
The products covered by this order include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside
diameter of 0.372 inches or more, but not more than 16 inches in
outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black,
galvanized, or painted) or end finish (plain end, beveled end,
threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally
known as standard pipe, though they may also be called structural or
mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes and tubes are
intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,
air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-
conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses.
Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical
applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protections of
electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.
The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing or those
types or mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe
applications. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical
description outline above are included in the scope of this order,
except for line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. The subject
merchandise was classifiable under items 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241,
610.3242, 610.3243, 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, and
610.4925 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated
(``TSUSA''); currently, it is classifiable under item numbers
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055,
7306.30.5805, and 7306.30.5090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (``HTSUS''). Although the TSUSA and HTSUS item numbers
are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written
description remains dispositive.
History of the Order
In the final determination of the original investigation, covering
the period February 1, 1985, through July 31, 1985 (51 FR 9089, March
17, 1986), the Department determined a margin of 7.08 percent for Tata
Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (``TISCO''), and ``all others.'' 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Two of the three companies investigated, Zenith Steel Pipes
and Industries Ltd. and Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., were excluded from
the final affirmative determination, since the Department found no
sales at less than fair value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been six administrative reviews for the subject
antidumping duty order. A summary of these reviews follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of Review (``POR'') Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 May 1987--30 April 1988.............. 56 FR 64753 (December 12, 1991)
1 May 1988--30 April 1989.............. 56 FR 64753 (December 12, 1991)
1 May 1990--30 April 1991.............. 57 FR 54360 (November 18, 1992)
1 May 1995--30 April 1996.............. 62 FR 47632 (September 10,
1997)
62 FR 63070 (November 26, 1997)
Amended
1 May 1996--30 April 1997.............. 63 FR 32825 (June 16, 1998)
63 FR 39269 (July 22, 1998)
Amended
63 FR 66120 (December 1, 1998)
Amended
1 May 1997--30 April 1998.............. 64 FR 23821 (May 4, 1999)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67880]]
In addition to the companies subject to the original investigation, the
Department has investigated and/or reviewed imports from producers/
exporters Jindal Pipes Ltd. (``Jindal''), Rajinder Pipes Ltd.
(``Rajinder'') and Rajinder Steel Ltd. (collectively ``RSL''), and
Lloyd's Metals & Engineers (``Lloyds'').
To date, the Department has not issued a duty-absorption
determination in this case.
Background
On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from
India (64 FR 23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The
Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp., Sawhill Tubular Division--Amoco, Century
Tube, IPSCO Tubular Inc., LTV Steel Tubular Products, Maverick Tube
Corporation, Sharon Tube Company, Western Tube and Conduit, and
Wheatland Tube Company (collectively ``domestic interested parties'')
on May 18, 1999, within the deadline 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 certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes.
We received a complete substantive response from the domestic
interested parties on June 2, 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.
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). On September 7, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset
review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel
pipes and tubes from India 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 duty
order, and it 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. 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 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 result in the
resumption of sales at less than fair value by margins equivalent to
those found in the original investigation (see June 2, 1999,
Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 3). With respect
to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the
issuance of the order, the domestic interested parties assert that
margins have increased since the original investigation. For example,
domestic interested parties note the dumping margins for two
investigated companies, Tisco and Rajinder, increased to 87.39 percent.
Id.
With respect to import volumes, the domestic interested parties
assert that import volumes for the subject merchandise declined
significantly, noting that 1998 imports amounted to 12,000 tons, or
nearly a 50-percent drop from the 22,000 tons imported in 1985 (the
year prior to the subject order). Id. In their substantive response,
the domestic interested parties argue that both the overall decrease in
imports from India into the United States and continuing presence of
even higher dumping margins than those found in the original
investigation indicate a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping
should the order be terminated.
As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies continue
dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were
removed. Dumping margins above de minimis have existed throughout the
life of the order, and continue to exist, for shipments of subject
merchandise from all Indian producers/exporters investigated other than
those excluded from this order.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, we considered the volume
of imports before and after the issuance of the order in 1986. The
statistics on imports of the subject merchandise cited by the domestic
interested parties and those we examined show that Indian producers/
exporters continued to export after the order was issued, although not
[[Page 67881]]
at pre-order levels. According to U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, in
1985, the year prior to the order, approximately 20 million kilograms
of subject merchandise were imported into the United States. Although
imports peaked in 1988, average imports declined to approximately 7.5
million kilograms over the next ten years, which is almost 50 percent
of pre-order levels.
Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Given that
dumping has continued at levels above de minimis after the issuance of
the order, average imports of subject merchandise declined after the
issuance of the order, respondent interested parties have waived their
right to participate in this review before the Department, and absent
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that
dumping is likely to continue if the order were revoked.
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).
In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties,
based on their argument that dumping is likely to continue should the
order be terminated, urge the Department to find that the magnitudes of
the margins likely to prevail are identical to the margins found for
Indian producers/exporters in the original investigation (see June 2,
1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 3).
We agreed with the domestic interested parties' assertion that we
should report to the Commission the margins from the original
investigation. These margins reflect the behavior of exporters without
the discipline of the order in place. Absent argument, or evidence to
the contrary, we see no reason to change our usual practice. Therefore,
the Department, consistent with the SAA at 890 and the House Report at
64, will report to the Commission the margins from the original
investigation as contained in this 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 duty order would likely lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping at the margin listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Producer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tata Iron and Steel Company, Ltd........................... 7.08
All others................................................. 7.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 C.F.R. 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. 99-31423 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P