[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 857-860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-247]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-068]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Steel Wire Strand from 
Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: steel wire 
strand from Japan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on 
steel wire strand from Japan (63 FR 46410) 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 finding would 
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the 
levels indicated in the Final Results of the 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: January 6, 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 finding is steel wire 
strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which are stress-
relieved and suitable for use in prestressed concrete. Such merchandise 
is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item 
number 7312.10.30.12. The HTS item number is provided for convenience 
and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
steel wire strand from Japan, other than imports produced by Sumitomo 
Electric Ind., Ltd. and exported by the Sumitomo Corp., for which the 
finding has been revoked (51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986), and imports 
produced by Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire (formerly known as Kawatetsu 
Wire Products Co., Ltd.), for which the investigation was discontinued 
(43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978).

Background

    On September 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping finding on steel wire strand from Japan (63 FR 46410), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice 
of Intent to Participate on behalf of the American Spring Wire Corp., 
Florida Wire & Cable, Inc., Insteel Wire Products and Sumiden Wire 
Products Corp. (collectively ``the domestic industry'') on September 
16, 1998,

[[Page 858]]

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 U.S. manufacturer of a domestic like 
product. In addition, American Spring Wire Corp and Florida Wire & 
Cable indicated that they were two of the original five petitioners and 
that the three other original petitioners are no longer producers of 
the subject merchandise. We received a complete substantive response 
from the domestic industry on October 1, 1998, 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 finding.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping finding 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 
finding, and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail 
if the finding 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).
    The antidumping finding on steel wire strand from Japan was 
published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 78-487 (43 FR 
57599, December 8, 1978). Prior to this finding, on August 28, 1978, 
Treasury discontinued the dumping investigation with respect to imports 
from Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Ltd. (43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978). 
Since the Treasury finding, the Department has conducted several 
administrative reviews.1 On August 29, 1986, the Department 
revoked the finding with respect to imports produced by Sumitomo 
Electric Ind., Ltd. and exported by the Sumitomo Corp. (51 FR 30894, 
August 29, 1986). On March 5, 1990, the Department issued the final 
results of a changed circumstances review, determining that Kawasaki 
Steel Techno-Wire was the successor to Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., 
Ltd. and, therefore, that the discontinuance issued to Kawatetsu Wire 
Products Co., Ltd. applied to Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire (55 FR 7759, 
March 5, 1990). The finding remains in effect for all other 
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 48 FR 45586 
(October 6, 1983); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from 
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Revocation in Part; 51 FR 30894 (August 29, 1986); Steel Wire Strand 
for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 4373 (February 11, 1987); Steel 
Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 37997 (October 13, 
1987); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 9787 (March 
25, 1988); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 11162 
(April 5, 1988); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from 
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 55 
FR 28796 (July 13, 1990); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete 
from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
55 FR 46853 (November 7, 1990); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed 
Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 56 FR 66840 (December 26, 1991); and Steel 
Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Notice of Final 
Court Decision and Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 62 FR 60688 (November 12, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, the domestic industry argued that the 
actions taken by producers and exporters of Japanese steel wire strand 
during the life of the finding indicate that ``(w)ere the finding to be 
revoked, it is likely that dumping would continue because the evidence 
demonstrates that the Japanese producers and exporters need to dump to 
sell in any significant quantities in the United States' (see October 
1, 1998, Substantive Response of the Domestic Industry). With respect 
to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the 
issuance of the finding, the domestic industry stated that, as 
documented in the final results of administrative reviews issued by the 
Department, a ``review of the behavior of Japanese producers following 
the imposition of the antidumping finding shows continued dumping by at 
least one producer, Tokyo Rope Manufacturing, at a rate of 4.5 percent 
following imposition of the order'' (see October 1, 1998, Substantive 
Response of the Domestic Industry).
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
after the issuance of the finding, the domestic industry, citing U.S. 
Department of Commerce reports and U.S. Census statistics for U.S. 
imports (IM146 reports), asserted that ``imports of PC Strand from 
Japan have fallen to insignificant commercial volumes'' since the 
imposition of the finding.2 Furthermore, the domestic 
industry argued that decreasing import volumes together with the 
existence of an antidumping duty finding strongly supports the 
conclusion that dumping would continue if the finding were revoked and 
demonstrates that Japanese manufacturers of steel wire strand cannot 
sell in the United States without dumping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The domestic industry provided information on U.S. imports 
of steel wire strand for prestressed concrete from Japan, on an 
annual basis, in short tons, from 1975 through 1998. The 1998 data 
was annualized based on data from January through July, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, the domestic industry argued that the Department 
should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue 
were the finding revoked because (1) dumping margins have existed 
throughout the life of the finding, and (2) most companies

[[Page 859]]

have dramatically reduced exports or ceased exports of the subject 
merchandise altogether.
    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. A dumping margin above de minimis continues to exist for 
shipments of the subject merchandise from the Tokyo Wire Rope 
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 4373 
(February 11, 1987), as corrected by Steel Wire Strand for 
Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Correction; 52 FR 37997 (October 13, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the 
finding. The import statistics provided by the domestic industry on 
imports of the subject merchandise between 1975 and 1998, and confirmed 
through the Department's examination of U.S. Census data (IM146 
reports), demonstrate that in the two years following the imposition of 
the finding, imports of the subject merchandise fell by approximately 
50,000 short tons (from approximately 80,000 in 1978 to approximately 
30,000 short tons in 1980). Since that period, imports of subject 
merchandise have decreased every year, with few exceptions. The 
statistics demonstrate that imports of steel wire strand from Japan 
have not been above 1000 short tons per year since 1990. This is 
consistent with the Department's findings of no shipments by the 
reviewed companies in many of the administrative reviews conducted by 
the Department.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 48 FR 45586 
(October 6, 1983); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from 
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Revocation in Part; 51 FR 30894 (August 29, 1986); Steel Wire Strand 
for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 4373 (February 11, 1987); Steel 
Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 37997 (October 13, 
1987); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 9787 (March 
25, 1988); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; 
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 11162 
(April 5, 1988); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from 
Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 55 
FR 28796 (July 13, 1990); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete 
from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 
55 FR 46853 (November 7, 1990); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed 
Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 56 FR 66840 (December 26, 1991); and Steel 
Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Notice of Final 
Court Decision and Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 62 FR 60688 (November 12, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of the finding is highly probative 
of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit 
rate above a de minimis level continues in effect for exports of the 
subject merchandise by at least one known Japanese manufacturer/
exporter. Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of 
the finding, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the 
Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the finding 
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.)
    Treasury, in its final determination of sales at less than fair 
value, published weighted-average dumping margins for five Japanese 
manufacturers and exporters of steel wire strand (43 FR 38495, August 
28, 1978). Of these five manufacturers, Treasury discontinued the 
investigation for one because of de minimis margins (Kawatetsu, 43 FR 
38495, August 28, 1978) and the Department subsequently revoked the 
order with respect to another (Sumitomo, 51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986). 
Treasury did not publish an ``all others'' rate in its determination. 
The Department indicated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin that, under 
these circumstances, the Department normally will provide to the 
Commission, as the margin for any new company not reviewed by Treasury, 
the first ``new shipper'' rate established by the Department for that 
finding (see section II.B.1). We note, that, to date, the Department 
has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
    In its substantive response, the domestic industry recommended 
that, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department 
provide to the Commission the company-specific margins included in the 
Treasury determination published in the Federal Register. Further, the 
domestic industry stated that the Department should inform the 
Commission of the two companies for which this finding has been 
revoked, Kawasaki Steel Techno Wire and Sumitomo Electric Industries, 
Ltd.
    As for companies not reviewed in the original investigation, the 
domestic industry argued that the Department assign these companies a 
rate of 15.8 percent, the highest company-specific rate identified by 
Treasury in its determination. Citing the September 29, 1982, Federal 
Register notice Clear Sheet Glass from Taiwan: Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 47 FR 42769, the domestic 
industry stated that the Department should follow its practice of 
automatically assigning the highest rate for any of the investigated 
companies as the ``all others.'' Therefore, the all others rate should 
be the 15.8 percent calculated by Treasury for Sumitomo Electric 
Industries, Ltd. and published on August 28, 1978 (43 FR 38495, August 
28, 1978). Alternatively, the domestic industry argued that, should the 
Department believe it should rely on its more recent practice of 
deriving the ``all others rate,'' the Department should use the 
weighted-average dumping margin from the original investigation as 
identified in the Commission's final injury determination of November 
29, 1978. In its final determination, the Commission stated that 
``[t]he weighted average dumping margin for all the sales compared was 
9.76 percent''.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, 
Inv. No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928 at 4 (Nov. 1978) or Steel Wire 
Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, 43 FR 55826, November 
29, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department agrees with the domestic industry's assertion that 
it should report to the Commission the company-specific margins 
published in the original Treasury final determination. The Department 
noted, in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, that the margins from the 
original investigation are the only calculated rates that reflect the 
behavior of exporters without the discipline of the order in place. 
Therefore, the Department finds these rates are the most probative of 
the behavior of these companies if the finding were revoked absent

[[Page 860]]

information and argument to the contrary.
    The Department agrees with the domestic industry, in part, 
concerning the choice of the ``all others'' rate. We have no basis for 
applying the Department's early all others rate policy to the Treasury 
investigation. In fact, the Department itself abandoned the practice of 
applying the highest rate for responding firms as the all others rate. 
Currently, the all others rate is the weighted-average of the 
individual dumping margins calculated for those exporters and producers 
that are individually investigated. Therefore, we agree with the 
domestic industry that the weighted-average dumping margin for all 
sales of the subject merchandise, as calculated by Treasury and 
published by the Commission in its final injury determination for this 
proceeding, is an appropriate measure of the first ``all others'' rate. 
Thus, the Department will report to the Commission the company-specific 
and all others rates from the original investigation as 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 finding would likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire Co, Ltd........  Investigation
(formerly Kawatetsu Wire Products Co.,      Discontinued
 Ltd.).
Shinko Wire Co., Ltd......................  13.3
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. (and     Revoked
 exported by Sumitomo Corp.).
Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd............  6.9
Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd.........  4.5
All Others................................  9.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: December 30, 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-247 Filed 1-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P