[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67871-67873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31424]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-583-803]


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

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


[[Page 67872]]


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

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

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 Taiwan (54 
FR 22794) 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 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-
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 CFR 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 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

Scope

    The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is Taiwanese 
light-walled welded carbon steel tubing of rectangular (including 
square) cross-section, having a wall thickness of not less than 0.065 
inches, and 0.375 inches or more but not over 4.5 inches in outside 
diameter. The subject merchandise is classifiable under item number 
7306.60.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience 
and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988, 
through June 30, 1988, the Department determined the following margins 
for U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Taiwan: 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; 
Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Taiwan, 54 
FR 5532 (February 3, 1989).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                     Producer/exporter                        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ornatube Enterprise (``Ornatube'').........................         5.51
Vulcan Industrial Corp.....................................        40.97
Yieh Hsing Industries, Ltd.................................        40.97
All Others.................................................        29.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the issuance of the order in 1989, the Department has conducted 
two administrative reviews. In the first review, covering the period 
November 21, 1988, through February 28, 1990, the Department determined 
a margin of 0.1975 percent for Ornatube. In the second review, covering 
the period March 1, 1990, through February 28, 1991, the margin for 
Ornatube was 18.05 percent. 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 light-walled welded carbon steel tubing from 
Taiwan (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 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). On September 7, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset 
review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled welded rectangular 
carbon steel tubing from Taiwan 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 duty 
order, and it 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 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,

[[Page 67873]]

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 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 
Taiwan to the United States have almost disappeared entirely. Id. For 
instance, they contend, whereas in 1988 (the year before the 
antidumping duty order was issued), there were nearly 16,000 tons of 
U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Taiwan, in 1998, there were 
less than 100 tons of subject imports from Taiwan. Id. Thus, the 
domestic interested parties argue that continuing margins and the 
nearly total cessation of U.S. imports of the subject merchandise from 
Taiwan indicate a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping should 
the Department revoke this order. Id.
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties' 
argument that continuing margins and the nearly total cessation of U.S. 
imports from Taiwan indicate a strong likelihood that Taiwanese 
importers/producers will continue to export at less than fair value in 
the absence of the order. We found that, according to U.S. Census 
Bureau IM149 reports, imports declined significantly during the period 
following the order and margins continue to exist at levels above de 
minimis. If imports cease or decline significantly, it is reasonable to 
assume that exporters could not sell in the United States without 
dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume 
dumping.3 Further, if dumping continues after the issuance 
of an order, it is reasonable to determined that dumping would continue 
were the order 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that dumping has continued at levels above de minimis after 
the issuance of the order, import volumes for subject merchandise 
declined significantly, 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 were the order revoked.

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 Taiwan into 
the United States declined significantly after the issuance of the 
order, the Department should report to Commission 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 margins to report to the Commission. The 
margins from the original investigation are the only rates that reflect 
the behavior of Taiwanese producers/exporters without the discipline of 
the order and, therefore, are probative of the behavior of producers/
exporters of subject merchandise from Taiwan if the order were 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 margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                     Producer/exporter                        (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ornatube Enterprise (``Ornatube'').........................         5.51
Vulcan Industrial Corp.....................................        40.97
Yieh Hsing Industries, Ltd.................................        40.97
All Others.................................................        29.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 27, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31424 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P