[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16899-16901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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