[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