[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67852-67854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31425]



[[Page 67852]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Circular Welded Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Circular 
Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand (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, DC 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 certain 
circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, commonly referred to in 
the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural tubing,'' with walls 
not thinner than 0.065 inches, and 0.375 inches or more, but not over 
16 inches in outside diameter. 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.
    There was one scope ruling in which British Standard light pipe 
1387/67, Class A-1 was found to be within the scope of the order per 
remand (58 FR 27542, May 10, 1993).

History of the Order

    In the original investigation, covering the period September 1, 
1985, through August 31, 1986 (51 FR 3384, January 27, 1986), the 
Department determined a margin of 15.69 percent for Saha Thai Steel 
Pipe Co. (``Saha Thai''), 15.60 percent for Thai Steel Pipe Industry 
Co. (``Thai Steel''), and 15.67 percent for ``all others.''
    There have been seven administrative reviews for the subject 
antidumping duty order. A summary of these reviews follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Period of review (``POR'')                    Citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Mar 1987-29 Feb 1988.................  56 FR 58355 (November 19,
                                          1991).
                                         59 FR 65753 (December 21, 1994)
                                          Amended.
1 Mar 1988-28 Feb 1989.................  57 FR 38668 (August 26, 1992).
                                         57 FR 48017 (October 21, 1992)
                                          Amended.
                                         61 FR 29533 (June 11, 1996)
                                          Amended.
1 Mar 1992-28 Feb 1993.................  61 FR 1328 (January 19, 1996).
                                         61 FR 18375 (April 25, 1996)
                                          Amended.
1 Mar 1994-28 Feb 1995.................  61 FR 56515 (November 1, 1996).
                                         62 FR 2131 (January 15, 1997)
                                          Amended.
                                         62 FR 8423 (February 25, 1997)
                                          Amended.
1 Mar 1995-29 Feb 1996.................  62 FR 53808 (October 16, 1997).
1 Mar 1996-29 Feb 1997.................  63 FR 55578 (October 16, 1998).
                                         63 FR 65172 (November 25, 1998)
                                          Amended.
1 Mar 1997-28 Feb 1998.................  64 FR 56759 (October 21, 1999).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the two companies subject to the original investigation, 
the Department, has reviewed imports from producers/exporters Thai Hong 
Steel Pipe Import Export Co., Ltd. (``Thai Hong''), Thai Union Steel 
Co., Ltd. (``Thai Union''), Siam Steel Pipe Import Export Co., Ltd. 
(``Siam Steel Pipe''), and Pacific Pipe Company (``Pacific Pipe'') over 
the life of this order. 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 circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes 
from Thailand (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, 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

[[Page 67853]]

Regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested-party 
status under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) as U.S. producers of circular 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 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 27, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset 
review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes from Thailand 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.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 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 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 an 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 
continuation 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 dumping 
continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the 
order, the domestic interested parties assert that increases in dumping 
margins have followed increases in imports. For example, a spike in 
imports between 1994 and 1996 resulted in a dumping margin of nearly 30 
percent for Saha Thai and a margin of over 37 percent for several other 
producers. Id. With respect to whether import volumes for the subject 
merchandise declined significantly, the domestic interested parties 
note that imports were sharply curtailed by the issuance of the margins 
over 30 percent, dropping from 62,000 tons in 1997 to 28,000 tons in 
1998. 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. With the exception of the 1987/88 and 1988/89 review periods, 
when the Department determined a de minimis margin for Saha Thai, 
dumping margins above de minimis have existed throughout the life of 
the order, and continue to exist, for shipments of subject merchandise 
from all other Thai producers/exporters investigated.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department 
considered the volume of imports before and after the issuance of the 
order in1986. 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 a pattern of 
decreasing import volumes following margin increases. Thai producers/
exporters continued to dump after the order was issued; however, U.S. 
imports dramatically declined after margins peaked in the 1987/88 
review. Imports also declined from 1996 to 1998 after margin increases 
in the 1995/96 review.
    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 declined 
significantly after dumping margins were increased, 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

[[Page 67854]]

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 as the volume of imports increased, the margin of dumping 
likewise increased, and imports decreased only as a result of increases 
in the dumping margins. Accordingly, the domestic interested parties 
assert that the Department should find the magnitude of the margin of 
dumping likely to prevail to be the highest margin found for the Thai 
producers/exporters investigated in any administrative reviews (see 
June 2, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 
3).
    According to the Sunset Policy Bulletin a company may choose to 
increase dumping in order to maintain or increase market share. As a 
result, increasing margins may be more representative of a company's 
behavior in the absence of an order (see section II.B.2 of the Sunset 
Policy Bulletin). In addition, the Sunset Policy Bulletin notes that 
the Department will normally consider market share. However, absent 
information on relative market share, and absent argument to the 
contrary, we have looked at import volumes in the present case.
    The Department disagrees with domestic interested parties' 
assertion that the Department should report to the Commission the 
highest rates for Saha Thai, Thai Steel, and all others. As noted 
above, a company may choose to increase dumping in order to maintain or 
increase market share, and therefore, increasing margins may be more 
representative of a company's behavior in the absence of an order (see 
section II.B.2 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). In this case, however, 
absent information on relative market share, the Department cannot 
determine whether Saha Thai and Thai Steel increased their exports into 
the U.S. in order to maintain or increase market share. Furthermore, 
the Department finds that, throughout the history of the order, 
increasing imports'as found in the U.S. Census Bureau IM146 Reports-do 
not necessarily correspond to margin increases for all respondents. For 
instance, when imports peaked at nearly 130 million kilograms in the 
1987/88 review, Saha Thai's margin was de minimis, at 0.49 percent, and 
Thai Steel's margin increase from the original investigation was 
insignificant.
    Therefore, without a correlation between increases in imports and 
dumping margins, the Department finds the original rates most probative 
of the behavior of Thai producers/exporters of circular welded carbon 
steel pipes and tubes if the order were revoked. Because Siam Steel 
Pipe, Thai Hong and Thai Union were not specifically investigated until 
after the order was issued, consistent with the Policy Bulletin (see 
section II.B.1), the Department will provide a margin based on the all 
others rate from the investigation for these companies. Thus, the 
Department will report to the Commission the company-specific and all 
others rates as 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co....................................        15.69
Thai Steel Pipe Industry Co................................        15.60
All others.................................................        15.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 99-31425 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-01-P