[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67876-67879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31421]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-489-501]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Certain Welded Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of Expedited Sunset Review: Certain 
welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey (64 FR 
23596) 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 
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 duty 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: Kathryn B. McCormick 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-
1930 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 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 19 C.F.R. Part 351(1999) 
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

[[Page 67877]]

(April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

    The products covered by this order include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside 
diameter of 0.372 inches or more, but not more than 16 inches in 
outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, 
galvanized, or painted) or end finish (plain end, beveled end, 
threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally 
known as standard pipe, though they may also be called structural or 
mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes and tubes are 
intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water steam, natural gas, 
air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-
conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. 
Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical 
applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protections of 
electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.
    The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing or those 
types or mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe 
applications. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical 
description outline above are included in the scope of this order, 
except for line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-
drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for 
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. The subject 
merchandise was classifiable under items 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241, 
610.3242, 610.3243, and 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, 
610.4925 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated 
(``TSUSA''); currently, it is classifiable under item numbers 
7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, and 7306.30.5040, 
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5805 and 7306.30.5090 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the TSUSA and HTSUS 
item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    In the original investigation, covering the period February 1, 
1985, through July 31, 1986 (51 FR 13044, April 7, 1986), the 
Department determined a margin of 1.26 percent for Borusan Ithicat ve 
Dagitim (``Borusan''); 23.12 percent for Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru 
Industrisi (``Mannesmann'') and Erkboru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret 
(``Erkboru''); and 14.17 percent for ``all others.''
    There have been six administrative reviews for the subject 
antidumping duty order. A summary of these reviews follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Review       Period of Review (``POR'')           Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)............  3 Jan 1986-30 April 1987...  53 FR 39632 (October 11,
                                               1988).
(2)............  1 May 1987-30 April 1988...  57 FR 54046 (November 16,
                                               1992).
(3)............  1 May 1988-30 April 1989...  56 FR 23864 (May 24,
                                               1991).
(4)............  1 May 1993-30 April 1994...  62 FR 51629 (October 2,
                                               1997).
                                              62 FR 62758 (November 25,
                                               1997) Amended.
(5)............  1 May 1994-30 April 1995...  61 FR 69067 (December 31,
                                               1996).
                                              62 FR 16547 (April 7,
                                               1997) Amended.
                                              62 FR 27013 (May 16, 1997)
                                               Amended.
(6)............  1 May 1996-30 April 1997...  63 FR 35190 (June 29,
                                               1998).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the companies subject in the original investigation, the 
Department has investigated and/or reviewed imports from producers/
exporters Borusan Holding A.S., Borusan Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S., 
Borusan Boru Sanayii A.S., Istikbal Ticaret A.S., Borusan Ihracat 
Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S., and Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation 
(collectively, the ``Borusan Group''); Yucelboru Ihracat, Ithalat ve 
Pazarlama A.S. (``Yucel Boru''); and Erbosan Erviyas Boru Sanayii ve 
Ticaret A.S. (``Erbosan''). To date, the Department has not issued a 
duty absorption determination in this case.

Background

    On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 
from Turkey (64 FR 23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The 
Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of 
Allied Tube and Conduit Corp., Sawhill Tubular Division--Amoco, Inc., 
Century Tube, IPSCO Tubular Inc., LTV Steel Tubular Products, Maverick 
Tube Corporation, Sharon Tube Company, Western Tube and Conduit, and 
Wheatland Tube Company (collectively ``domestic interested parties'') 
on May 18, 1999, within the deadline specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The domestic interested 
parties claimed interested party status under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) as 
U.S. producers of welded carbon steel pipes and tubes. We received a 
complete substantive response 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). 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.
    In accordance with 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). On 
September 7, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review of 
the antidumping order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from 
Turkey is extraordinarily complicated and, therefore, the Department 
extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this 
review until not later than November 29, 1999, in accordance with 
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 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 duty order, 
and

[[Page 67878]]

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. Additionally, 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 consideration of 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 their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
argue that revocation of the subject order would result in the 
resumption of sales at less-than-fair value by margins equivalent to or 
greater than those found in the original investigation (see June 2, 
1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 3). With 
respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis 
after the issuance of the order, the domestic interested parties assert 
only that margins continue to exist and, in some reviews, have 
increased since the original investigation. Id. With respect to whether 
import volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly, the 
domestic interested parties note that 1998 imports amounted to only 
7,400 tons (75 million kg), nearly a quarter of 1985 (the year prior to 
the subject order) figures. Id.
    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 have existed throughout the 
life of the order, and continue to exist, for shipments of subject 
merchandise from some Turkish producers/exporters investigated by the 
Department.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department 
considered the volume of imports before and after the issuance of the 
1986 order. The statistics on imports of the subject merchandise cited 
by the domestic interested parties and those examined by the Department 
(U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports), show that Turkish producers/
exporters continued to export after the order was issued, and peaked at 
approximately 42 million kilograms in 1987, and 1994. From 1988 through 
1998, imports averaged approximately 15 million kilograms, less than 
half of pre-order volumes.
    Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of 
dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Given that 
dumping has continued at levels above de minimis after the issuance of 
the order, import volumes for subject merchandise significantly 
declined, 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 dumping is 
likely to continue 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).
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
argue that both the overall decrease in imports from Turkey into the 
United States and continuing presence of even higher dumping margins 
than those found in the original investigation indicate a strong 
likelihood of continuation of dumping should the order be revoked. 
Accordingly, the domestic interested parties assert that the Department 
should find the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail to 
be the margins found for Turkish producers/exporters in the original 
investigation (see June 2, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic 
interested parties at 3).
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties' 
suggestion that the Department should report to the Commission the 
margins from the original investigation. These margins are the only 
margins that reflect the behavior of exporters absent the discipline of 
the order. Absent argument or evidence to the contrary, the Department 
sees no reason to change its usual practice of selecting the margins 
from the original investigation. We will report to the Commission the 
margins 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 likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                     Producer/exporter                        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borusan Ithicat ve Dagitim.................................         1.26
Erkboru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret...........................        23.12
Mannesmann-Summerbank Boru Industrisi......................        23.12
All others.................................................        14.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 67879]]

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 9, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31421 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P