[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66884-66886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30961]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-549-601]


Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Malleable Cast Iron Pipe 
Fittings From Thailand

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of full sunset review: Malleable cast 
iron pipe fittings from Thailand.

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

SUMMARY: On July 29, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full 
sunset review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe 
fittings from Thailand (64 FR 41082) 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 respondent interested parties and rebuttal 
comments from domestic interested parties. The Department did not 
receive a request for a public hearing and, therefore, no hearing was 
held. 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 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: November 30, 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-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

Scope

    Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain malleable 
cast iron pipe fittings, other than grooved, from Thailand. 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''). The HTSUS item numbers are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes.

Background

    On May 28, 1999, the Department issued the Preliminary Results of 
Full Sunset Review: Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Thailand (64 
FR 41082) (``Preliminary Results''). In our Preliminary Results, we 
found that revocation of the order would likely result in 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 1.70 percent for Siam Fittings Co., Ltd. (``Siam'') as 
well as for all other producers and/or exporters.
    On September 13, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 
351.309(c)(1)(i), we received comments on behalf of Siam, Thai 
Malleable Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and BIS Pipe Fittings Industry Co., 
Ltd. (collectively, ``the Thai respondents''). On September 20, 1999, 
within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(d), the Department 
received rebuttal comments from the Cast Iron Pipe Fittings Committee 
and its individual members, Grinnell Corporation and Ward 
Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, ``CIPFC''). No public hearing was 
requested or held in this sunset review. We have addressed the comments 
received below.

Comments

    Comment 1: The Thai respondents argue that the Department's 
preliminary determination concerning the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping fails to reflect congressional intent. They argue 
that the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') expressly states 
that increasing exports after the issuance of an antidumping duty order 
is indicative that dumping is not likely to continue or resume if the 
order were revoked. Specifically,

[[Page 66885]]

quoting the SAA at 889-90, the Thai respondents state that declining 
(or no) dumping margins accompanied by steady or increasing imports may 
indicate that foreign companies do not have to dump to maintain market 
share in the United States and that dumping is less likely to continue 
or recur if the order were revoked. The Thai respondents state that 
imports of the subject merchandise from Thailand increased three-fold 
over the life of the order. Moreover, the Thai respondents assert that, 
during the past five years, exports of subject merchandise from 
Thailand consistently exceeded the quantity exported from Thailand 
prior to the issuance of the order. Thus, according to the Thai 
respondents, increasing imports of subject merchandise from Thailand 
favors a determination that dumping is not likely to prevail.
    In rebuttal, the CIPFC argues that the Thai respondents increasing 
import volumes argument is inaccurate. The CIPFC states that the Thai 
respondents, in their February 3, 1999, substantive response, admitted 
that exports of pipe fittings from Thailand have fluctuated during the 
last five years. Furthermore, the CIPFC states that there has actually 
been a decline in import volumes in four of the last five years (1994-
1998). Therefore, according to CIPFC, there are not legitimate grounds 
for the Department to make a ``no likelihood'' determination.
    Department: The Department disagrees with the Thai respondents. The 
existence of increasing imports by itself does not indicate that there 
would be no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. 
Rather, as provided in the SAA and Sunset Policy Bulletin, declining or 
no dumping margins accompanied by steady or increasing imports may 
indicate that a company does not have to dump in order to maintain 
market share. In this case, there has been no decline in dumping 
margins. Rather, absent administrative review, the dumping margin from 
the original investigation is the only indicator available to the 
Department with respect to the level of dumping. Because 1.70 percent 
is above the 0.5 percent de minimis standard applied in sunset reviews, 
we find that dumping has continued over the life of the order and is 
likely to continue if the order were revoked.
    Comment 2: The Thai respondents argue that the fact that the 
domestic producers have never bothered to request that the Department 
conduct an administrative review of this order further supports a 
finding of no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. 
Citing to the preamble of the Department's May 1997 final regulations, 
the Thai respondents indicate that the Department itself has recognized 
that, ``[i]f domestic interested parties do not request a review, 
presumably it is because they acknowledge that subject merchandise 
continues to be fairly traded''. Furthermore, the Thai respondents cite 
to the Department's final determination in the sunset review of sugar 
and syrups from Canada (64 FR 48362 (September 3, 1999)) in which, 
according to the Thai respondents, the Department concluded that the 
absence of a domestic party request for an administrative review points 
to a finding of no dumping.
    The CIPFC argues that the Thai respondents have completely 
mischaracterized the Department's sunset determination in sugar and 
syrups from Canada. The CIPFC asserts that the Department specifically 
rejected the proposition that the absence of administrative reviews 
could be equated with a lack of domestic industry interest in the 
order. More importantly, according to CIPFC, the sugar and syrups from 
Canada case involved a zero deposit rate which had remained in effect 
for many years, whereas respondents in this case have a 1.70 percent 
deposit rate.
    Department: We do not agree that the absence of a request for an 
administrative review of this order supports an inference that the 
subject merchandise continues to be fairly trades or points to finding 
of no dumping. Unlike the facts in sugar and syrups from Canada, in 
which a zero deposit rate had been in effect for many years, the record 
in this case demonstrates the existence of an above de minimis deposit 
rate. Therefore, the domestic interested parties' lack of request of an 
administrative review presumably reflects their belief that dumping 
continues at a rate of 1.70.
    Comment 3: The Thai respondents reiterate their arguments from 
their February 3, 1999, substantive response concerning the de minimis 
standard in their comments on the Department's Preliminary Results. The 
Thai respondents argue that, under current WTO standards, a 1.70 
percent dumping margin would be de minimis. According to the Thai 
respondents, Article 5.8 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article 
VI (``Antidumping Agreement'') defines a de minimis margin of dumping 
as one that is less than two percent. The Thai respondents acknowledge 
that the Department's regulations impose a 0.5 percent de minimis 
standard for reviews (see 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), however, they argue 
that regulations which are inconsistent with the Antidumping Agreement 
should not be given effect.
    The CIPFC, in its September 20, 1999, rebuttal comments, states 
that the Department has already soundly rejected the treatment of 
Siam's 1.70 dumping margin as de minimis. The CIPFC further states that 
the statute and the regulations encompassing the Uruguay Round 
commitments establish a de minimis rate of 0.5 percent (see 19 USC 
Sec. 1675a(c)(4)(B) and 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). Furthermore, according to 
the CIPFC, 19 USC Sec. 3512(d) specifically provides that rates above 
0.5 percent are not de minimis in sunset reviews.
    Department: The Department agrees with the CIPFC. Both the statute 
and regulations clearly provide that in reviews of orders, the 
Department will treat as de minimis any weighted average dumping margin 
that is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem (see section 752(c)(4)(B) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)). Further, section 752(c)(4)(B) of the 
Act specifically provides that the de minimis standard to be applied in 
sunset reviews is the standard applied in reviews conducted under 
subsections (a) and (b) of section 751 (i.e., 0.5 percent). Finally, we 
note that the SAA at 845 specifies that the requirements of Article 5.8 
apply only to investigations, not to reviews of antidumping duty orders 
or suspended investigations. Therefore, we find that the 1.70 percent 
deposit are applied to Siam as well as all other Thai producers and/or 
exporters, is not de minimis for the purposes of this sunset review.

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 and those above. Furthermore, for the reasons set 
forth in our Preliminary Results of review and those above, we find 
that margins calculated in the original investigations are probative of 
the behavior of Thai producers and/or 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam........................................................        1.70
All Other Producers/Exporters...............................        1.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to

[[Page 66886]]

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 of 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: November 22, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-30961 Filed 11-29-99; 8:45]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M