[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 150 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42665-42668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-605, A-580-507, and A-583-507]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Malleable Cast Iron 
Pipe Fittings From Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Malleable 
cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

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

SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and 
Taiwan (64 FR 364) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the basis of notices of intent to 
participate and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of 
domestic interested parties and inadequate responses (in these cases, 
no response) from respondent interested parties, the Department 
determined to conduct expedited reviews. As a result of these reviews, 
the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the 
levels indicated in the Final Results of Reviews section of this 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. 
Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 or (202) 
482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    These reviews were 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 CFR 351 (1998) 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

    Imports covered by these orders are shipments of certain malleable 
cast iron pipe fittings, other than grooved, from Japan, South Korea, 
and Taiwan. In the original orders, these products were classified in 
the Tariff Schedules of the United States, Annotated (TSUSA), under 
item numbers 610.7000 and 610.7400. These products are currently 
classifiable under item numbers 7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60, and 
7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(HTSUS). By letter of February 8, 1989, the Department clarified that 
union heads, tails, and nuts fell within the scope of the antidumping 
duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from South 
Korea.1 The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience 
and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Letter to Thomas J. Lindmeier from Joseph A. Spetrini, 
February 8, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These orders apply to all imports of certain malleable cast iron 
pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

History of the Orders

Japan

    The Department issued the antidumping duty order on malleable cast 
iron pipe fittings from Japan on July 6, 1987 (52 FR 25281). The order 
identified weighted-average margins of dumping of 57.79 percent for 
Hitachi Metals Ltd. and all others. The Department has not conducted an 
administrative review of the order.

South Korea

    The Department issued the antidumping duty order on malleable cast 
iron pipe fittings from South Korea on May 23, 1986 (51 FR 18917). The 
order applied a weighted-average dumping margin of 12.48 percent to all 
producers/exporters. Although not

[[Page 42666]]

specified in the order, the investigation covered Mijin Metal 
Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Mijin''). The Department conducted one 
administrative review of the order, covering the period May 1, 1987, 
through April 30, 1988, and two Korean manufacturers; Mijin and Shin 
Han Cast Iron Co., Ltd. (see 54 FR 13090 (March 30, 1989)).

Taiwan

    The Department issued the antidumping duty order on malleable cast 
iron pipe fittings from Taiwan on May 23, 1986 (51 FR 18918), as 
amended (53 FR 784 (January 13, 1988)). The order applied weighted-
average dumping margins to five Taiwanese producers/exporters as well 
as to all others. The Department conducted two administrative reviews 
of the order covering the periods January 14, 1986, through April 30, 
1987, and May 1, 1987, through April 30, 1988 (see 53 FR 16179 (May 5, 
1988) and 54 FR 38713 (September 20, 1989)).

Background

    On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from 
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (64 FR 364) pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act. On January 19, 1999, the Department received Notices of 
Intent to Participate on behalf of the Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 
Committee and its members, Grinnell Corporation and Ward Manufacturing 
(collectively ``CIPFC''), within the applicable deadline specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The CIPFC claimed 
interested-party status under section 771(9)(F) of the Act as an ad hoc 
trade association consisting entirely of U.S. manufacturers of 
malleable cast iron pipe fittings.
    We received complete substantive responses to the notice of 
initiation on February 3, 1999, on behalf of CIPFC. In its substantive 
responses, CIPFC stated that it and its two current members have been 
participants in these proceedings since the Department's original 
investigations. We did not receive a substantive response from any 
respondent interested party in any of the reviews.
    The Department determined that the sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from 
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are 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 May 7, 1999, the 
Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results 
of these reviews until not later than August 2, 1999, in accordance 
with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Steel Wire Rope From Japan, et. al.: Extension of Time 
Limit for Final Results of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 24573 (May 7, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(b) of the Act provides that, in 
making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the original 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 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 magnitude of the margin likely to prevail are 
discussed below. In addition, CIPFC's comments with respect to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin 
likely to prevail 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 basis for 
likelihood determinations. The Department clarified that determinations 
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.2 
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally 
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.a of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
    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 the order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested 
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In these reviews, 
the Department did not receive a substantive 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 its substantive responses, CIPFC argues that revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders would likely result in the continuation or 
resumption of dumping of malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, 
South Korea, and Taiwan. CIPFC asserts that, in accordance with the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department normally will determine that 
revocation of an antidumping duty order is likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where dumping continued at any 
level above de minimis after the issuance of the order. Further, CIPFC 
cites to the SAA and comments that continuation of dumping at any level 
above de minimis after the issuance of the order is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. CIPFC notes 
that a deposit rate based on the weighted-average dumping margin of 
57.39 percent, as established in the antidumping duty order covering 
Japan, has remained unchanged over the life of the order. With respect 
to the margins established in the orders on South Korea and Taiwan, 
CIPFC asserts that the margins have increased as a result of 
administrative reviews. Specifically, CIPFC asserts that, as a result 
of an administrative review on the order covering imports from Korea, 
undertaken by the Department in 1989, company-specific margins for two 
Korean producers increased from 12.48 percent to 25.59 percent. 
Additionally, CIPFC asserts that, as a result of reviews on the order 
covering imports from Taiwan, the margins increased from a range of 
7.95-80 percent to 37.09-138.81 percent.
    Additionally, CIPFC asserts that the volume of imports of subject

[[Page 42667]]

merchandise from all three countries declined after the issuance of the 
orders. CIPFC provided import statistics demonstrating that, in fact, 
imports from each country decreased substantially after the imposition 
of the orders and never achieved pre-order levels. Based on these 
policies, CIPFC asserts that dumping of malleable cast iron pipe 
fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would continue or recur if 
the orders were to be revoked.
    Finally, in further support of the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping, in its substantive responses, CIPFC asserts that 
malleable cast iron pipe fittings are standardized products. Thus, 
imports and domestically manufactured pipe fittings are essentially 
interchangeable. CIPFC argues that, as a result, the domestic industry 
is vulnerable to unfairly priced imports.
    As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, the existence of dumping 
margins after the order is highly probative of the likelihood of the 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. If companies continue to dump 
with the discipline of an order in place, it is reasonable to assume 
that dumping would continue if the discipline were revoked.
    Deposit rates above de minimis remain in effect for all exports of 
malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. 
Therefore, since dumping margins have continued over the life of the 
order, import volumes declined significantly after the imposition of 
the orders, respondent interested parties waived participation, and 
absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines 
that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the orders were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will 
provide to the Commission a margin from the investigation because that 
is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters 
without the discipline of an order or suspension agreement in place. 
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.
    As noted above, the Department has not conducted an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe 
fittings from Japan. The Department conducted one administrative review 
of the antidumping duty order covering South Korea and two 
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order covering Taiwan. 
The Department has not issued a duty absorption determination with 
respect to any of these orders.
    In its substantive response in the review on Japan, CIPFC argues 
that, consistent with the provisions of the statute, SAA, and Sunset 
Policy Bulletin, the Department should determine that the margin likely 
to prevail if the antidumping duty order on Japan were revoked is the 
margin from the original investigation, as that is the only calculation 
margin available to the Department.
    In its substantive response in the review on South Korea, CIPFC 
refers to the Sunset Policy Bulletin and argues that increasing margins 
may be more representative of a company's behavior absent the 
discipline of the order. CIPFC asserts further that no company-specific 
rate was published by the Department in the original investigation. 
Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice related to 
findings issued by the Treasury Department where no company-specific 
rate is published, CIPFC urges the Department to rely on the company-
specific rates from the first administrative review, as these are the 
only company-specific rates available to the Department. Therefore, 
CIPFC asserts that the 25.59 percent margins applied to Mijin and Shin 
Han Cast Iron Co., Ltd., as a result of the administrative review are 
the rates likely to prevail were the order revoked.
    With respect to the order on Taiwan, CIPFC cites to the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin and argues that the more recently calculated margins 
resulting from the administrative review in 1989 are more 
representative of Taiwanese producer's likely behavior if the order 
were to be revoked than are the original rates. CIPFC asserts that the 
Department should provide the highest company-specific dumping margins 
available to the Commission as this is representative of the magnitude 
of the margin likely to prevail.
    We agree with CIPFC with respect to the selection of the margin 
likely to prevail were the order on Japan revoked. The Department finds 
that the margin from the original investigation is the only calculated 
rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the discipline of 
the order and, thus, is probative of the behavior of Japanese 
producers/exporters.
    With respect to CIPFC's argument that no company-specific margin 
was issued in the order on South Korea, we disagree. While the order 
and final and preliminary determinations of sales at less than fair 
value specify that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin 
applies to all imports, review of the notices of preliminary and final 
determinations makes clear that the margin was calculated on the basis 
of the response of Mijin. 3 Therefore, the 12.48 percent 
margin from the original investigation applied to Mijin and all others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, Other than Grooved, 
From Korea, 51 FR 1546 (January 14, 1986) and 51 FR 10900 (March 31, 
1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with CIPFC's suggestion that we should select the 
highest rates from the administrative reviews of the orders on South 
Korea and Taiwan as the margins likely to prevail if the orders were 
revoked. The Sunset Policy Bulletin refers to the selection of a 
recently calculated rate in cases where companies choose to increase 
dumping to maintain or increase market share. Based on the import 
statistics provided by CIPFC, this is clearly not the case with respect 
to these orders. Rather, as CIPFC argues, imports decreased after the 
issuance of the orders. There is no evidence that Korean or Taiwanese 
exporters increased dumping in order to maintain or increase market 
share.
    Based on the above analysis, we find no reason to deviate from our 
policy of selecting the margins from the original investigation as 
probative of the behavior of the producers/exporters absent the 
discipline of the order. Therefore, the Department will report to the 
Commission the company-specific and the all others margins from the 
original investigations as contained in the ``Final Results of 
Reviews'' section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

    As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation 
of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan:
    Hitachi Metals, Ltd. (HML).............................        57.39
    All Others.............................................        57.39
Korea:
    Mijin Metal Industrial Co., Ltd........................        12.48
    All Others.............................................        12.48

[[Page 42668]]

 
Taiwan:
    San Yan Metal Industries Co., Ltd......................        27.90
    De Ho..................................................        13.12
    Tai Yang...............................................        37.09
    Kwang Yu...............................................         7.93
    Young Shieng...........................................        80.00
    All Others.............................................        28.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    We are issuing and publishing the determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 30, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20225 Filed 8-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P