[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42905-42907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20341]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-201-806]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rope 
From Mexico

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: carbon 
steel wire rope from Mexico.

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

SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico (64 FR 364) 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 adequate substantive 
comments filed on behalf of domestic interested parties 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
    Effective Date: August 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 duty order is carbon 
steel wire rope from Mexico. Carbon steel wire rope includes ropes, 
cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel, other than stranded wire, 
not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, and not made up of 
plated wire. The subject merchandise is classifiable under subheadings 
7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060 and 7312.10.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule (HTS). The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and 
customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    The review covers all manufacturers and exporters of Mexican carbon 
steel wire rope.

History of the Order

    The antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico 
was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 1993 (58 FR 16173). 
The Department, in the antidumping duty order, established a deposit 
rate of 111.68 percent for Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. (Camesa). In 
addition, the Department established a rate of 111.68 percent on all 
other imports of the subject merchandise from Mexico (58 FR 16173, 
March 25, 1993).
    Since that time, the Department has conducted one administrative 
review.1 We note that, to date, the Department has not 
issued any duty absorption findings in this case. The order remains in 
effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Carbon Steel Wire Rope From Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 46735, September 2, 
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping order on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico (64 FR 364), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice 
of Intent to Participate on behalf of the Committee of Domestic Steel 
Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers (``the Committee'') on 
January 19, 1999, within the deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.2 The Committee 
claimed interested party status, under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) and (F), as 
a trade association, the majority of whose members manufacture, 
produce, or wholesale carbon steel wire rope in the United States. We 
received a complete substantive response from the Committee on February 
3, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations 
under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). In its response, the Committee 
indicated that it was the petitioner in the original investigation and 
participated in the first administrative review of this order and is 
currently participating in the ongoing second administrative review. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\  The Committee's members include: Bergen Cable Technology, 
Inc., Bridon American Corporation, Carolina Steel & Wire 
Corporation, Continental Cable Company, Loos & Co., Inc., Macwhyte 
Company, Paulsen Wire Rope Corporation, Sava Industries Inc., 
Strandflex (Division of MSW) and the Wire Rope Corporation of 
America, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping 
duty order on steel wire rope from Mexico is extraordinarily 
complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(6)(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).

[[Page 42906]]

(See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) Therefore, on May 3, 1999, the 
Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results 
of this review until not later than August 2, 1999, in accordance with 
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Steel Wire Rope From Japan, Shop Towels From the 
People's Republic of China, Shop Towels From Bangladesh, Candles 
From the People's Republic of China, Steel Wire Rope From Mexico, 
Shop Towels From Pakistan, Steel Wire Rope From South Korea, 
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From South Korea, Malleable Cast 
Iron Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings 
From Japan: 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 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, the Committee's 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.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).
    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 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.
    In its substantive response, the Committee argues that revocation 
of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping (see 
February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the Committee at 11). With 
respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis 
after the issuance of the order, the Committee asserts that a deposit 
rate of 111.68 percent has been in effect on all imports of the subject 
merchandise since the issuance of the order. The Committee notes, 
however, that in the Department's final determination in the sole 
administrative review (dated September 2, 1998), the Department reduced 
the deposit rate for one Mexican manufacturer, Camesa, to zero (see 
February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the Committee at 7).
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
after the issuance of the order, the Committee asserts that, following 
the imposition of the order, imports of carbon steel wire rope from 
Mexico all but ceased (see February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the 
Committee at 3). Citing U.S. Census Bureau trade statistics, the 
Committee asserts that imports of the subject merchandise decreased 
from 2,882 net tons in the year preceding the imposition of the order 
to 112 tons in the year of the order. The Committee asserts that import 
values have not risen above this level in any succeeding 
year.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Committee asserts that imports of non-subject 
merchandise were misclassified as subject merchandise in both 1995 
and 1998. It has requested verification of the import volumes of 
subject merchandise from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of the 
publication of this notice, the U.S. Census Bureau has not issued 
any correction to its previously published import statistics for 
this product. If this report were to confirm the Committee's 
assertions, the import volumes of subject merchandise for 1995 and 
1998 would be 0 and 39 tons per year, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the Committee argues that the Department should 
determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were 
the order revoked because (1) dumping margins above de minimis levels 
have been in place since the imposition of the order and (2) imports of 
the subject merchandise have been sporadic and extremely limited and do 
not reflect actual commercial conditions under which Mexican producers 
would operate in the absence of the order.
    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. Dumping margins above de minimis levels have continued to 
exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from Camesa and all 
other Mexican producers/exporters throughout most of the life of the 
order.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Carbon Steel Wire Rope From Mexico; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 46735, September 2, 
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the 
order. The Department, utilizing U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports and 
information concerning imports of subject merchandise from our original 
investigation and subsequent administrative review, can confirm that 
imports of the subject merchandise decreased sharply following the 
imposition of the order and remain sporadic and limited. These facts 
strongly support a finding that dumping is likely to continue in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Department notes that in the sole administrative review of this 
order we calculated a dumping margin of zero for Camesa, who the 
Department believes to be the sole producer/exporter of the subject 
merchandise. However, the Department does not find this zero dumping 
margin, in and of itself, to be indicative of the Camesa's behavior in 
the absence of the order for several reasons. First, a single de 
minimis dumping margin does not demonstrate that Camesa can 
continuously and consistently sell subject merchandise in the United 
States without dumping. This finding is also supported by the fact that 
imports of subject merchandise from Mexico decreased dramatically

[[Page 42907]]

following the issuance of the order and have remained limited and 
sporadic, including during the review period. Therefore, 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, the Department finds that 
where dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import 
volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly, we normally 
will determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be 
likely to lead to recurrence of dumping. As such, given that import 
volumes have fallen significantly since the imposition of the order and 
that respondent interested parties have waived their right to 
participate in this review before the Department, and, absent argument 
and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that, 
consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, dumping 
is likely to continue or recur if the order 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.)
    The Department, in the antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire 
rope from Mexico, established a deposit rate of 111.68 percent for 
Camesa. In addition, the Department established a rate of 111.68 
percent on all other imports of the subject merchandise from Mexico (58 
FR 16173, March 25, 1993). We note that, to date, the Department has 
not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
    In its substantive response, the Committee argues that the 
Department should report to the Commission the rate established in the 
original investigation because, as stated in the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, it is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of 
exporters without the discipline of the order. The Committee states 
that the 111.68 percent rate has been in effect for all imports of the 
subject merchandise and, only recently, was the deposit rate reduced to 
zero with respect to Camesa. Further, the Committee argues that this 
latest rate is based on an extremely limited and controlled shipment 
made by Camesa in order to establish the basis for an administrative 
review (see February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the Committee at 
6).
    The Department agrees with the Committee. We find that the dumping 
margin calculated in the original investigation is the only calculated 
rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the discipline of 
the order. Consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine 
that the margin calculated in the Department's original investigation 
is probative of the behavior of Mexican producers and exporters of 
carbon steel wire rope if the order were revoked. Therefore, 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 duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margin listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camesa.....................................................       111.68
All Other Mexican Manufacturers/Exporters..................       111.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: August 2, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20341 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P