[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67248-67251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-122-506; A-583-505]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Oil Country Tubular 
Goods From Canada and From Taiwan

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Oil country 
tubular goods from Canada.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on oil country tubular goods (``OCTG'') from Canada and from Taiwan (64 
FR 23596) 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 response (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: 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;

[[Page 67249]]

telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 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 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

    The merchandise subject to these antidumping duty orders is OCTG 
from Canada and from Taiwan. This includes American Petroleum Institute 
(``API'') specification OCTG and all other pipe with the following 
characteristics except entries which the Department determined through 
its end use certification procedure were not used in OCTG applications: 
length of at least 16 feet; outside diameter of standard sizes 
published in the API or proprietary specifications for OCTG with 
tolerances of plus \1/8\ inch for diameters less than or equal to 8\5/
8\ inches and plus \1/4\ inch for diameters greater than 8\5/8\ inches, 
minimum wall thickness as identified for a given outer diameter as 
published in the API or proprietary specifications for OCTG; a minimum 
of 40,000 PSI yield strength and a minimum 60,000 PSI tensile strength; 
and if with seams, must be electric resistance welded. Furthermore, 
imports covered by these reviews include OCTG with non-standard size 
wall thickness greater than the minimum identified for a given outer 
diameter as published in the API or proprietary specifications for 
OCTG, with surface scabs or slivers, irregularly cut ends, ID or OD has 
not been mechanically tested or has failed those tests.\1\ The 
merchandise is currently, classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedules (``HTSUS'') item numbers 7304.20, 7305.20, and 7306.20. The 
HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. 
The written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department determined, on April 30, 1991, that seamless 
mechanical tubing/certain coupling stock meeting criteria are 
excluded from the scope of the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings, 
56 FR 19833 (April 30, 1991)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The order on OCTG from Canada covers all manufacturers and 
exporters of Canadian OCTG, excluding Welded Tube of Canada, Ltd. 
(``Welded Tube'') and Ipsco, Inc. (``Ipsco'').\2\ The order on OCTG 
from Taiwan covers all manufacturers and exporters of Taiwanese OCTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Welded Tube was excluded from the Department's less than 
fair value determination (see Antidumping; Oil Country Tubular Goods 
From Canada; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
51 FR 15029 (April 22, 1986)). In addition, the Department revoked 
this order with respect to Ipsco (see Oil Country Tubular Goods From 
Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Revocation in Part of the Antidumping Duty Order, 61 FR 49733 
(September 23, 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of the Orders

    The antidumping duty order on OCTG from Canada was published in the 
Federal Register on June 16, 1986 (51 FR 21782).\3\ The Department, in 
the antidumping duty order, as amended, established deposit rates for 
the following producers and/or exporters: 13.00 percent for Algoma 
Steel Corporation, Ltd. (``Algoma''), 33.78 percent for Ipsco, and 3.18 
percent for Sonco Steel Tube, Ltd. (``Sonco''). The Department also 
established a 16.65 percent deposit rate for all other producers and/or 
exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The antidumping duty order was subsequently amended. See Oil 
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) From Canada: Amendment to Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to 
Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 29579 (August 19, 1986) and Oil 
Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order in 
Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 54 FR 41576 (October 10, 
1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since that time, the Department has conducted six administrative 
reviews.\4\ 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, excluding 
Welded Tube and Ipsco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of the 
Antidumping Duty Order, 61 FR 49733 (September 23, 1996); Oil 
Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 60 FR 35898 (July 12, 1995); Oil Country 
Tubular Goods From Canada, Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 59 FR 34409 (July 5, 1994); Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Oil Country Tubular Goods 
From Canada, 56 FR 41890 (August 23, 1991); Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Oil Country Tubular Goods 
From Canada, 56 FR 38408 (August 13, 1991); Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Oil Country Tubular Goods 
From Canada, 55 FR 50379 (December 10, 1990); Oil Country Tubular 
Goods From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance With 
Decision Upon Remand, 54 FR 41576 (October 10, 1989); Oil Country 
Tubular Goods (OCTG) From Canada: Amendment to Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty 
Order, 51 FR 29579 (August 19, 1986); Antidumping Duty Order: Oil 
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) From Canada, 51 FR 21782 (June 16, 
1986); and Antidumping; Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 15029 (April 
22, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The antidumping duty order on OCTG from Taiwan was published in the 
Federal Register on June 16, 1986 (51 FR 22098). The Department, in the 
antidumping duty order, established a deposit rate of 26.32 percent for 
Far East Manufacturing Company (``Far East''). The Department also 
established a 26.32 percent deposit rate for all other producers and/or 
exporters. The Department has not conducted any administrative reviews 
of this order. 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.

Background

    On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on OCTG from Canada and from Taiwan (64 FR 
23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received 
Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf of North Star Steel Ohio 
(``North Star''), Lone Star Steel Company (``Lone Star''), Maverick 
Tube Corporation (``Maverick''), U.S. Steel Group (``U.S. Steel''), and 
USS/Kobe Steel Company (``USS/Kobe'') (collectively, the ``domestic 
interested parties'') on May 18, 1999, within the deadline specified in 
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.\5\ The domestic 
interested parties claimed interested party status under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. manufacturers of OCTG. We received 
complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties on 
June 2, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset 
Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ USS/Kobe only provided a substantive response to the Notice 
of Initiation of the sunset review of OCTG from Canada. USS/Kobe did 
not participate in the Department's sunset review of OCTG from 
Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, Lone Star stated that it participated in the 
original investigations of OCTG from Canada and from Taiwan. 
Furthermore, Lone Star and Maverick stated that they had participated 
in subsequent administrative reviews of the Canadian order. U.S. Steel 
and USS/Kobe stated that neither has participated before the Department 
in prior proceedings of the Canadian OCTG order. We did not

[[Page 67250]]

receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to 
these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct expedited, 
120-day, reviews of these orders.
    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). Therefore, on August 31, 1999, the Department extended the time 
limit for completion of the final results of these reviews until not 
later than November 29, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) 
of the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 48579 (September 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(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making these determinations, the Department shall consider the 
weighted-average dumping margins determined in the investigations 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 orders, and shall provide to the International Trade 
Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping 
likely to prevail if the orders are revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, the domestic interested 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

    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 reviews, 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 their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties 
argued that revocation of this antidumping duty orders would likely 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping by Canadian and Taiwanese 
producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. With respect to 
whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the 
issuance of the orders, the domestic interested parties argued that 
dumping has continued throughout the life of the orders at above de 
minimis levels. Furthermore, USS/Kobe argued that the dumping margins 
for some Canadian producers and/or exporters have not only continued 
throughout the life of the order, but have consistently increased.
    The domestic interested parties also argued that import volumes 
have declined significantly since the issuance of the orders. 
Specifically, the domestic interested parties argued that imports of 
OCTG from Canada in the year prior to the imposition of the order 
amounted to over 150,000 tons but have since almost completely ceased. 
Specifically, North Star stated that imports of OCTG from Canada have 
dropped to less than 1,500 tons per year. Furthermore, USS/Kobe 
provided data which indicates that imports of OCTG from Canada in 1998 
were less than 2,000 tons and have not exceeded 8,100 tons in any year 
since 1991.
    With respect to the Taiwanese order, Lone Star and Maverick argued 
that imports of OCTG from Taiwan were nearly 10,000 tons prior to the 
imposition of the order but have since almost completely disappeared. 
In fact, Lone Star and Maverick stated that there were no shipments of 
the subject merchandise from Taiwan in 1998.
    In summary, the domestic interested parties argued that the 
Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping 
would continue were the orders revoked because (1) Dumping margins 
above de minimis levels have been in place since the imposition of the 
orders and (2) Imports of the subject merchandise have declined 
significantly since the imposition of the orders.
    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 throughout the life of 
the orders.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the 
orders. The Department, utilizing U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, 
agrees with the domestic interested parties that imports of the subject 
merchandise decreased sharply following the imposition of the orders. 
Furthermore, the Department agrees with Lone Star and Maverick that 
there were no imports to the United States of Taiwanese OCTG in 1998. 
However, imports of Taiwanese OCTG did resume in 1999. Despite the 
dramatic decline in imports of OCTG from Canada and Taiwan and the 
cessation of imports of Taiwanese OCTG in 1998, the Department can 
confirm that imports of the subject merchandise continue from both 
countries.
    Based on our analysis of the records in these proceedings, the 
Department finds that the existence of dumping margins after the 
issuance of the orders is highly probative of the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates above de minimis 
levels continue in effect for exports of OCTG by all Canadian and 
Taiwanese manufacturers and/or exporters subject to the 
orders.7 Therefore, given that

[[Page 67251]]

dumping has continued over the life of the orders and respondent 
interested parties have waived their right to participate in these 
reviews before the Department, and absent argument and evidence to the 
contrary, the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue 
if the orders were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\  As noted above, with respect to the Canadian order, Welded 
Tube was excluded from the Department's less than fair value 
determination and the order was revoked with respect to Ipsco (see 
Antidumping; Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 15029 (April 
22, 1986) and Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of 
the Antidumping Duty Order, 61 FR 49733 (September 23, 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 OCTG from Canada, 
as amended, established deposit rates for the following producers and/
or exporters: 13.00 percent for Algoma, 33.78 percent for Ipsco, and 
3.18 percent for Sonco. The Department also established a 16.65 percent 
deposit rate for all other producers and/or exporters (51 FR 21782 
(June 16, 1986)).8 We note that, to date, the Department has 
not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\  The antidumping duty order was subsequently amended. See 
Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) From Canada: Amendment to Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to 
Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 29579 (August 19, 1986) and Oil 
Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order in 
Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 54 FR 41576 (October 10, 
1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department, in the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Taiwan, 
established a deposit rate of 26.32 percent for Far East. The 
Department also established a 26.32 percent deposit rate for all other 
producers and/or exporters (51 FR 22098 (June 16, 1986)). We note that, 
to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in 
this case.
    In its substantive responses, the domestic interested parties 
argued that the Department should report to the Commission the deposit 
rates established in the original investigations of these orders 
because, as stated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, they are the only 
calculated rates that reflect the behavior of producers and/or 
exporters without the discipline of the order. Furthermore, with 
respect to the order on OCTG from Canada, USS/Kobe argued that for two 
additional producers not examined in the original investigation, 
Christianson Pipe, Ltd. and Prudential Steel, Ltd., the Department 
should report the all others rate from the original investigation.
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties. We find 
that the dumping margins calculated in the original investigations are 
the only calculated rates that reflect the behavior of exporters 
without the discipline of the orders. Consistent with the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, we determine that the margins calculated in the Department's 
original investigations are probative of the behavior of Canadian and 
Taiwanese producers and/or exporters of OCTG if the orders were 
revoked. Therefore, we will report to the Commission the company-
specific and ``all others'' rates from the original investigations 
contained in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

Final Results of 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 margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian manufacturers/exporters:
    Algoma...............................  13.00
    Sonco................................  3.18
    Ipsco................................  Revoked.
    Welded Tube..........................  Excluded.
All Others...............................  16.65
Taiwanese manufacturers/exporters:
    Far East.............................  26.32
All Others...............................  26.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: November 24, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31225 Filed 11-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P