[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67870-67871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31422]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-357-802]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Light-Walled Welded 
Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing From Argentina

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited Sunset Review: Light-
walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Argentina 
(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 the 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: 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-
1698 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 (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 this antidumping duty order is light-
walled welded carbon steel tubing of rectangular (including square) 
cross-section, having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch, from 
Argentina. The subject merchandise is classifiable under item 
7306.60.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience 
and U.S. customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
    This review covers imports from all producers and exporters of 
light-walled welded carbon steel tubing from Argentina.

History of the Order

    In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988, 
through June 30, 1988, the Department determined a margin of 56.26 
percent for U.S. imports of subject merchandise from 
Argentina.1 Since the issuance of the order, the Department 
has not conducted any administrative reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 
Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Argentina, 
54 FR 13913 (April 6, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on light-walled welded carbon steel tubing from 
Argentina (64 FR 23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The 
Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of 
California Steel and Tube, Hannibal Industries Inc., Maruichi American 
Corporation, Searing Industries, Leavitt Tube, Vest Inc., and Western 
Tube and Conduit (collectively ``domestic interested parties''), within 
the applicable deadline (May 18, 1999) specified in section 
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The domestic interested 
parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the 
Act as U.S. producers of a domestic like product. We received a 
complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties on 
June 2, 1998, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset 
Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). Many of the domestic 
interested parties are members of the Committee on Pipe and Tube 
Imports, the trade association on whose behalf the original petition 
was filed. 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 light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel 
tubing from Argentina is extraordinarily complicated and 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.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 duty 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 determination 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

[[Page 67871]]

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 duty 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 their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
argue that revocation of the subject order would have the effect of 
resumption of sales at less than fair value by margins equivalent to or 
greater than those found in the original investigation and subsequent 
reviews (see June 2, 1999 Substantive Response of the domestic 
interested parties at 3).
    With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased 
after the issuance of the order, the domestic interested parties assert 
that since the issuance of the order, imports of subject tubing from 
Argentina into the United States have almost disappeared entirely. Id. 
Because imports of subject merchandise from Argentina into the United 
States have nearly ceased, the domestic interested parties argue that 
there is a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping should this 
order be terminated (see June 2, 1999 Substantive Response of domestic 
interested parties at page 3). Moreover, the continued dumping at 56.26 
percent is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Id.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department 
considered the volume of imports before and after the 1989 issuance of 
the 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), demonstrate that imports of the 
subject merchandise have ceased since the issuance of the order. 
Additionally, the margin of 56.26 percent ad valorem, the estimate from 
the original investigation, has continued throughout the history of the 
order.
    The Department finds that the cessation of imports after the 
issuance of the order is highly probative of the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping.3 Given that imports 
of subject merchandise have ceased, that an above de minimis deposit 
rate remains in effect for all imports, that respondent interested 
parties have waived their right to participate in this review, and 
absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines 
that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Department of Commerce Policy Bulletin, Policies Regarding 
the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Orders quoting the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
Statement of Administrative Action (citation omitted), 63 FR 18871, 
18872 (April 16, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states 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 
assert that, because imports of subject merchandise from Argentina into 
the U.S. ceased after the issuance of the order, the Department should 
find the magnitude of the margin to be 56.26 percent, the margin from 
the original investigation (see June 2, 1999 Substantive Response of 
domestic interested parties at 3).
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties' 
argument concerning the choice of the margin to report to the 
Commission. Since there have been no administrative reviews of the 
order, the rate from the original investigation is the only rate 
available to the Department. Therefore, we determine that the margin 
determined in the original investigation is probative of the behavior 
of producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Argentina if the 
order was revoked.

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 margin listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Margin
                     Producer/exporter                        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Argentinian producers/exporters.......................        56.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31422 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P