[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53321-53323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25626]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-357-007]


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

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

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel 
Wire Rod from Argentina.

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

SUMMARY: On May 28, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full 
sunset review of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rod 
from Argentina (64 FR 28975) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). We provided interested parties 
an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received 
comments from both domestic and respondent interested parties. As a 
result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of this 
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: October 1, 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'') and in 19 CFR Part 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-

[[Page 53322]]

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 customs purposes, the written description remains 
dispositive.

Background 

    On May 28, 1999, the Department issued the Preliminary Results of 
Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Argentina (64 FR 28975) 
(``Preliminary Results''). In our preliminary results, we found that 
revocation of the order would likely result in the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. In addition, we preliminarily determined that 
the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order 
were revoked was 119.11 percent for Acindar Industria Argentina de 
Aceros S.A. (``Acindar'') and all others.
    On July 12, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 
351.209(c)(1)(i), we received comments on behalf of Co-Steel (formerly 
Raritan River Steel), GS Industries, and North Star Steel Company 
(collectively, the ``domestic interested parties''), the domestic 
participants in this review, and on behalf of Acindar, the respondent 
in this review. On July 15, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 
CFR 351.309(d), the Department received rebuttal comments from the 
domestic interested parties. We have addressed the comment received 
below.

Comment

    Comment 1: Acindar, in its July 12, 1999, case brief, states that 
they disagree with the Department's Preliminary Results in this sunset 
proceeding. Acindar argues that the 119.11 percent dumping margin to be 
reported to the Commission by the Department is not representative of 
the rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Acindar asserts 
that in a situation where the rate determined in the original 
investigation is not a rate based on a respondent's own data, as exists 
in this case, that rate should not be reported by Department. 
Furthermore, Acindar argues that the only administrative review 
conducted by the Department in which Acindar's own data was used 
resulted in a dumping margin of zero.
    In addition, Acindar argues that this fifteen year old rate does 
not reflect the significant changes which have taken place in the 
industry and market for subject merchandise since the imposition of the 
order. According to Acindar, the intervention of numerous events--
Mercosur, NAFTA, the changes in the Argentine currency, and the 
substantial changes in the wire rod industry in the United States and 
worldwide--all greatly weaken any inference that the rate of dumping 
``likely to recur'' is the rate hypothesized for Acindar in the early 
1980's.
    The domestic interested parties, in their July 12, 1999, case 
brief, stated that they agree with the Department's Preliminary Results 
in this proceeding. With respect to Acindar's assertion, the domestic 
interested parties, citing the SAA in their July 15, 1999, rebuttal 
brief, state that the dumping margin from the original investigation is 
the only rate that properly reflects the behavior of exporters prior to 
the issuance of the antidumping duty order. According to the domestic 
interested parties, Acindar's request that the Department select 
another rate to report to the Commission is in direct contradiction to 
the SAA. They argue that the rate from the original investigation is 
the most appropriate to report to the Commission. Lastly, the domestic 
interested parties argue that the age of margin the Department reports 
to the Commission is irrelevant and that the rate from the original 
investigation, regardless of how long ago the order was created, is 
most probative of the rate likely to prevail because it is the only 
rate which reflects the behavior of producers and/or exporters absent 
the discipline of the order.
    Department Position: The Department agrees with the domestic 
interested parties. The Department's Sunset Regulations state that we 
will normally provide the company-specific margin from the 
investigation for each company regardless of whether the margin was 
calculated using a company's own information or based on best 
information available or facts available. As stated in our Preliminary 
Results, the rate assigned to Acindar in the original investigation is 
the only one which reflects its behavior absent the discipline of the 
order and therefore is the most appropriate to report to the Commission 
as the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. The 
Department finds no reason to deviate from its stated policy in this 
proceeding.
    As for the zero dumping margin attained by Acindar in the sole 
administrative review of this order, the Department does not find this 
rate probative of the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be 
revoked. In its Preliminary Results, the Department noted that the 
establishment of this zero dumping margin was preceded by a significant 
reduction in import volumes of the subject merchandise. Furthermore, 
throughout the life of the order, import volumes have remained 
substantially below their pre-imposition of the order levels. This 
strongly suggests to the Department that Acindar had to dramatically 
reduce its exports of subject merchandise to the United States in order 
to eliminate dumping and would be unable to sell significant quantities 
(e.g. pre-imposition quantities) of subject merchandise in the United 
States and maintain a dumping margin of zero. Furthermore, the 
Department notes that a zero or de minimis dumping margin, in itself, 
does not require the Department to determine that continuation or 
recurrence of dumping is not likely nor does it indicate to the 
Department that a zero or de minimis margin is the margin likely to 
prevail if the order were to be revoked. See section 772(c)(4)(A) of 
the Act.

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 for the reasons set forth in our preliminary 
results of review. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in our 
preliminary results of review and as discussed above, we find that the 
margins calculated in the original investigation are probative of the 
behavior of Argentine producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. 
As such, the Department will report to the Commission the company-
specific and all others rates from the original investigation listed 
below:

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

    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

[[Page 53323]]

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: September 27, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-25626 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P