[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28975-28978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-357-007]


Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod 
From Argentina

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

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of full sunset review: carbon 
steel wire rod from Argentina.

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

SUMMARY: On November 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the

[[Page 28976]]

Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
carbon steel wire rod from Argentina (63 FR 58709) 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 filed on behalf of the 
domestic industry and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of 
the domestic industry and a respondent interested party, the Department 
is conducting a full review. As a result of this review, the Department 
preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping order would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels 
indicated in the Preliminary 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    This review is being 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 duty order is carbon 
steel wire rod from Argentina. This merchandise is currently 
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS) item numbers 7213.20.00, 7213.31.30, 7213.39.00, 7213.41.30, 
7213.49.00, and 7213.50.00. Although the item numbers are provided for 
convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description remains 
dispositive.

Background

    On November 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of 
the antidumping order on carbon steel wire rod from Argentina (63 FR 
58709), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On November 16, 1998, 
the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of 
North Star Steel, Co-Steel Raritan (formerly Raritan River Steel), and 
GS Industries, Inc. (collectively ``Domestic Parties'') within the 
applicable deadline (November 16, 1998) specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Each of the Domestic 
Parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the 
Act. We received complete substantive responses to the notice of 
initiation on December 2, 1998, on behalf of the Domestic Parties and 
Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. (``Acindar''). In its 
substantive response, Acindar claimed interested party status under 
section 771(9)(A) of the Act, as an Argentine producer of carbon steel 
wire rod.
    In its substantive response, Acindar provided the volume and value 
of its exports to the United States for the years 1993 through 1997. 
Acindar explained that because statutory record-keeping requirements in 
Argentina and internal record-keeping policies within Argentina do not 
provide for the keeping of records dating back to 1982, the year 
preceding the investigation of this case, it no longer had information 
relating to exports dating back to 1982. As a substitute, Acindar 
relied on import volumes reported by the Commission for this 
year.1 Further, Acindar stated that, as far as it is aware, 
it accounted for 100 percent of the total exports of Argentine subject 
merchandise to the United States during each of the five calendar years 
preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation. Based on 
the volume of exports information submitted by Acindar, the volume of 
imports as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the 
Census and Trade Info, and Acindar's claim that it accounted for 100 
percent of exports, we find that Acindar accounted for significantly 
more than 50 percent of the value of total exports of the subject 
merchandise over the five calendar years preceding the initiation of 
the sunset review. Therefore, respondent interested parties provided an 
adequate response to the notice of initiation and the Department is 
conducting a full sunset review in accordance with section 
351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For information concerning the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise for 1981, 1982 and 1983, Acindar cited to the U.S. 
International Trade Commission Pub. 1598, Carbon Steel Wire Rod from 
Argentina and Spain (Nov. 1984), at A-30, Table 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping 
duty order on carbon steel wire rod from Argentina is extraordinarily 
complicated. 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). (See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) Therefore, on January 15, 
1999, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the 
preliminary results of this review until not later than May 23, 1999, 
in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Argentina: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of Five-Year Reviews 64 FR 9475 
(February 26, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is 
conducting 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

Parties' Comments

    In their substantive response, the Domestic Parties argued that 
dumping is likely to recur if the order is revoked since imports from 
Argentina declined significantly from 1983 to 1997 (see Substantive 
Response of the Domestic Parties, at 3, December 2, 1998). Import 
statistics presented by the Domestic Parties show that imports declined 
from the 1983 high of 68,335 net tons down to 2,756 net tons in 
1997.3 Additionally, there were no imports from 1986-1988.

[[Page 28977]]

As a result, the Domestic Parties argued that, consistent with the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin, it is reasonable to assume that the Argentine 
exporters could not sell in the United States without dumping. Further, 
to reenter the U.S. market, Argentine exporters would have to resume 
dumping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Substantive Response of the Domestic Parties, at 3 and 
Attachment 1 (December 2, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its substantive response, Acindar argued that dumping would not 
be likely to continue or resume in the absence of the order. Acindar 
based this argument on the fact that, the only time the Department made 
a determination using actual company data, the Department found that no 
dumping margin existed. Acindar argued that since the margin likely to 
prevail if the order is revoked is zero, no dumping would occur if the 
order were revoked.
    In their rebuttal comments, the Domestic Parties argued that the 
fact that the Department calculated a zero margin for the 1988-1989 
administrative review, does not require the Department to reach a 
negative determination with respect to the likelihood of continuation 
or recurrence of dumping. Rather, referring to section 752(c)(4)(A) of 
the Act, the Domestic Parties asserted that the present absence of 
dumping is not necessarily indicative of how exporters would behave in 
the absence of the order.

Department's Determination

    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 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 duty order on carbon steel wire rod from Argentina 
was published in the Federal Register on November 23, 1984 (49 FR 
46180). Since that time, the Department has conducted three 
administrative reviews.4 The order remains in effect for all 
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Carbon steel wire rod from Argentina; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 49322 (November 30, 
1989); Carbon steel wire rod from Argentina; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 47064 (September 17, 
1991); and Carbon steel wire rod from Argentina; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 49455 (September 30, 
1991). There is a pending administrative review of this order; the 
proposed date for the completion of the preliminary results of this 
review is September 30, 1999 (see Carbon Steel Wire Rod from 
Argentina; Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 23053 (April 29, 
1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department 
considered whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis 
after the issuance of the order. In the administrative review covering 
the period November 1, 1988 through October 31, 1989, the Department 
determined that no dumping margin existed for Acindar (56 FR 47064, 
September 17, 1991). In addition, Acindar, as well as all other 
Argentine producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, received a 
cash deposit rate of zero at this time. In the next administrative 
review, based on the absence of shipments, the deposit rate remained 
unchanged. There have been no subsequent administrative reviews, 
therefore, this deposit rate has remained in effect. Further, according 
to the statistics provided by both the Domestic Parties and Acindar, 
shipments of the subject merchandise have continued. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that dumping did not continue at any level 
above de minimis after the issuance of the order.
    In addition, consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the 
Department also considered whether imports ceased after the issuance of 
the order. The Department, using U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports, 
determined that imports of the subject merchandise decreased sharply 
following the imposition of the order, and although non-existent in 
some years, imports have, nonetheless, continued. Because imports of 
subject merchandise from Argentina continued after the issuance of the 
order, we preliminarily determine that imports did not cease after the 
issuance of the order.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Department bases this determination on information 
submitted by Acindar in its December 2, 1998 submission, as well as 
U.S. IM146 Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce statistics, U.S. 
Department of Treasury statistics, and information supplied by the 
U.S. International Trade Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also considered whether dumping was eliminated after 
the issuance of the order and whether import volumes of the subject 
merchandise declined significantly. As noted above, the Department has 
preliminarily determined that dumping was eliminated following the 
issuance of the order. However, U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports 
indicate that, while dumping may have been eliminated, import volumes 
of the subject merchandise fell dramatically following the imposition 
of the order and have not resumed their pre-order levels. The U.S. 
Census Bureau information indicates that imports of the subject 
merchandise decreased by more than 97 percent in the year following the 
issuance of the order. Further, imports have consistently remained at 
less than 10 percent of their pre-order levels, excluding 
1996.6 Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines 
that although dumping was eliminated by Acindar, its export volumes 
have declined significantly since the issuance of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports indicate that for 1996, 
import volumes were approximately 20 percent of their pre-order 
level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As set forth in the Sunset Policy Bulletin (section II.A.3), and 
consistent with the SAA at 889-90, and the House Report at 63, where 
dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import 
volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly, the 
Department normally will determine that revocation of the antidumping 
duty order would be likely to lead to recurrence of dumping. Therefore, 
although dumping has been eliminated, shipments of the subject 
merchandise have declined dramatically. Therefore, we preliminarily 
determine that, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, dumping is likely to recur if the order were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

Parties' Comments

    In their substantive response, the Domestic Parties argue that the 
dumping margin likely to prevail is the margin calculated in the 
original investigation--119.11 percent. The Domestic Parties state that 
selection of this margin would be consistent with the SAA and Policy 
Bulletin, which provide that the Department generally will select a 
margin from the original investigation because that is the only 
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the 
discipline of

[[Page 28978]]

the order in place. Arguing that since the volume of imported wire rod 
from Argentina has declined to extremely low levels since the 
imposition of the order, the use of a more recently calculated margin 
is not appropriate in this case. Specifically, the Domestic Parties 
argued that the zero rate calculated in the 1988-1989 administrative 
review was based on sales of approximately 543.78 metric tons of wire 
rod, which is not a commercial quantity and, therefore, not 
representative of Acindar's behavior in the absence of the order.
    As noted above, Acindar states that the antidumping rate in the 
original investigation was based on so-called ``best information 
available,'' the dumping margins alleged by the petitioners, rather 
than Acindar's own information. Further, Acindar argues that the 
dumping margin calculated by the Department in the only administrative 
review in which the Department based its determination on actual 
company data, is the most reliable gauge of the antidumping duty margin 
likely to prevail when the order is revoked.

Department's Determination

    The Department agrees with the Domestic Parties. We find that the 
consistently low level of imports of the subject merchandise that have 
existed since the imposition of the order is not indicative of the 
behavior of Argentine producers/exporters in the absence of the order. 
Furthermore, the Department finds the establishment of a zero deposit 
rate coupled with a dramatic decrease in import volumes suggests that 
Argentine producers/exporters find it difficult to sell subject 
merchandise in the United States without dumping. The Department finds 
reason to believe that the consistently low level of exports can be 
attributed to Argentine producers'/exporters' difficulty in selling 
subject merchandise in the United States at a fair market value. 
Because of this, 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 preliminarily determine that the 
margin from the Department's original investigation is probative of the 
behavior of Argentine producers and exporters of carbon steel wire rod 
if the order were revoked. We will report to the Commission the 
company-specific and ``all others'' rates from the original 
investigation contained in the Preliminary Results of Review section of 
this notice.

Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that 
revocation of the order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acindar....................................................       119.11
All Others.................................................       119.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any 
hearing, if requested, will be held on July 19, 1999. Interested 
parties may submit case briefs no later than July 12, 1999, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than July 15, 1999. The Department will issue a notice of final results 
of this sunset review, which will include the results of its analysis 
of issues raised in any such comments, no later than September 28, 
1999.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 21, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-13686 Filed 5-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-U