[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67847-67851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31426]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-351-602, A-583-605, A-588-602, A-549-807, A-570-814]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain Carbon Steel 
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Brazil, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and The 
People's Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Certain 
carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Brazil, Taiwan, Japan, 
Thailand, and The People's Republic of China.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings (``pipe fittings'') 
from Brazil, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and The People's Republic of 
China (``China'') (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 an adequate response filed on behalf of a 
domestic interested party and inadequate response (in these cases no 
response) from respondent interested parties in each of these reviews, 
the Department decided 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 the continuation or recurrence 
of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Reviews 
section of this notice.

For Further Information Contact: Mark D. Young 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-
3207 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date: December 3, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

    These reviews were conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for conducting 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

[[Page 67848]]

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 products covered by these reviews are pipe fittings from 
Brazil, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and China. Pipe fittings from Brazil, 
Taiwan, and Japan are defined as carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, 
other than couplings, under 14 inches in diameter, whether finished or 
unfinished form, that have been formed in the shape of elbows, tees, 
reducer, caps, etc., and, if forged, have been advanced after forging. 
These advancements may include any one or more of the following: 
coining, heat treatment, shot blasting, grinding, die stamping or 
painting. Such merchandise was classifiable under Tariff Schedules of 
the United States Annotated (``TSUSA'') item number 610.8800. These 
imports are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (``HTSUS'') item number 7307.93.30.
    Pipe fittings from Thailand and China are defined as carbon steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings, having an inside diameter of less than 14 
inches, imported in either finished or unfinished form. These formed or 
forged pipe fittings are used to join section in piping systems where 
conditions require permanent, welded connections, as distinguished from 
fittings based on other fastening methods (e.g., threaded grooved, or 
bolted fittings). These imports are currently classifiable under the 
HTSUS item number 7307.93.30. The TSUSA and HTSUS subheadings are 
provided for convenience and United States Customs purposes. The 
written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product 
coverage for each of the orders.
    These reviews cover imports from all manufacturers and exporters of 
pipe fittings from Brazil, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and China.

History of the Orders

Brazil

    The Department published its final affirmative determination of 
sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') with respect to imports of 
pipe fittings from Brazil on October 24, 1986 (51 FR 37770). In this 
determination, the Department published one weighted-average dumping 
margin for all manufacturers and exporters of pipe fittings. This 
margin was later affirmed when the Department published its antidumping 
duty order on pipe fittings from Brazil on December 17, 
1986.1 The Department has not conducted an administrative 
review of this order since its imposition. On at least five occasions, 
the Department published notices of intent to revoke the order, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4)(iii), on the grounds that four 
consecutive anniversary months had passed without a request for 
administrative review. On each occasion, an interested party, as 
defined under 19 CFR 353.2(k)(5), objected to our intent to revoke this 
antidumping duty order. Based on the objection, pursuant to 19 CFR 
353.25(d)(1)(i), the order remains in effect for all manufacturers and 
exporters of the subject merchandise from Brazil.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings from Brazil, 51 FR 45152 (December 17 1986).
    \2\ See Notices of Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping 
Order, 57 FR 3994 (February 3, 1992); 59 FR 40006 (August 5, 1994); 
60 FR 27720 (May 25, 1995); 61 FR 6973 (February 23, 1996); 62 FR 
10523 (March 7, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taiwan

    On October 24, 1986, the Department issued its final affirmative 
determination of sales at LTFV regarding pipe fittings from Taiwan (51 
FR 37772). The Department published its antidumping duty order on 
December 17, 1986.3 Since the order was issued, the 
Department has conducted two administrative reviews with respect to 
pipe fittings from Taiwan.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings from Taiwan, 51 FR 45152 (December 17, 1986).
    \4\ See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from 
Taiwan; Final Results of Administrative Review, 56 FR 20187 (May 2, 
1991); Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan; 
Final Results of Administrative Review, 60 FR 49585 (September 26, 
1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In both reviews, the Department established four company-specific 
margins and an ``all others'' rate. The order remains in effect for all 
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise from Taiwan.

Japan

    The Department published its final affirmative determination of 
sales at LTFV with respect to imports of pipe fittings from Japan on 
December 29, 1986 (51 FR 46892). In this determination, the Department 
published weighted-average dumping margins for two companies and an 
``all others'' rate. These margins were later affirmed when the 
Department published its antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from 
Japan on February 10, 1987.5 The Department has not 
conducted an administrative review of this order since its imposition. 
On at least five occasions, the Department published notices of intent 
to revoke the order, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(d)(4), on the grounds 
that four consecutive anniversary months had passed without a request 
for administrative review. On each occasion, an interested party under 
19 CFR 353.2(k)(5) objected to our intent to revoke this antidumping 
duty order. Based on the objection, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(d)(1)(i), 
the order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the 
subject merchandise from Japan.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings from Japan, 52 FR 4167 (February 10, 1987).
    \6\ See Notices of Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping 
Order, 58 FR 17380 (April 2, 1993); 59 FR 40006 (August 5, 1994); 60 
FR 27720 (May 25, 1995); 61 FR 14291 (April 1, 1996); 62 FR 23218 
(April 29, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thailand

    On May 18, 1992, the Department issued its final affirmative 
determination of sales at LTFV with respect to imports of pipe fittings 
from Thailand (57 FR 21065). In this determination, the Department 
published weighted-average dumping margins for three companies as well 
as an ``all others'' rate. One of these companies' margin was found to 
be de minimis.7 These margins were later affirmed when the 
Department published its antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from 
Thailand on July 6, 1992.8 Since the order was issued, the 
Department has conducted one administrative review with respect to pipe 
fittings from Thailand.9 In that review, the Department 
calculated one company-specific margin. The order remains in effect for 
all Thai manufacturers and exporters of the

[[Page 67849]]

subject merchandise other than AST which was excluded from the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Awaji Sangyo (Thailand) (``AST'') was found to have a de 
minimis dumping margin and therefore was not included in the instant 
antidumping order. However, the Department commenced a separate LTFV 
investigation in 1994. In that investigation the Department 
concluded that AST was, at that time, dumping at levels above de 
minimis.  However, an order was not imposed against AST as a result 
of the International Trade Commission's negative injury 
determination. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from 
Thailand, 60 FR 10552 (February 27, 1995).
    See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 
60 FR 10552 (February 27, 1995).
    \8\ See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld 
Pipe Fittings from Thailand, 57 FR 29702 (July 6, 1992).
    \9\ See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from 
Thailand; Final Results of Administrative Review, 62 FR 40797 (July 
30, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

China

    The Department published its final affirmative determination of 
sales at LTFV with respect to imports of pipe fittings from China on 
May 18, 1992 (57 FR 21058). In this determination, the Department 
published weighted-average dumping margins for six companies as well as 
an ``all others'' rate. These margins were subsequently amended when 
the Department published its antidumping duty order on pipe fittings 
from China on July 6, 1992.10 The Department has not 
conducted an administrative review of this order since its imposition. 
In 1994 the Department determined that China's antidumping duty order 
was being circumvented by parties that were shipping the subject 
merchandise to Thailand for finishing.11 In that 
determination, the Department found that Chinese pipe fittings were 
being finished in Thailand by a Thai manufacturer and being sold to the 
United States as products of Thailand.12 The order remains 
in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject 
merchandise from China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment to the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Carbon Steel 
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China, 57 FR 
29702 (July 6, 1992).
    \11\ See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China; Affirmative Final Determination of 
Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 59 FR 15155 (March 31, 
1994).
    \12\ ``Considered within the scope of the antidumping duty order 
on pipe fittings from the PRC are all imports from all producers 
into the United States of pipe fittings from Thailand, [which are 
exported in unfinished form from China to Thailand, where some 
finishing is performed] unless accompanied by a certificate stating 
that such pipe fittings have not been produced from unfinished 
Chinese pipe fittings.'' Id. at 15158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on pipe fittings from Brazil, Taiwan, Japan, 
Thailand, and China (64 FR 23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the 
Act. We received Notices of Intent To Participate, in each of the five 
sunset reviews, on behalf of Trinity Fitting and Flange Group, Inc. 
(``TFFG''), Tube Forgings of America, Inc. (``TFA''), Mills Iron Works, 
Inc. (``Mills''), and Weldbend Corporation (``Weldbend'') (collectively 
``domestic interested parties''), by May 18, 1999, within the deadline 
specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. 
Pursuant to section 771(9)(C) of the Act, the domestic interested 
parties claimed interested-party status as U.S. manufacturers whose 
workers are engaged in the production of domestic like products. 
Moreover, the domestic interested parties stated that TFFG, TFA, and 
Mills were petitioners in the original investigation. The Department 
received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested 
parties by 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 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). The reviews at issue concern transition orders within the 
meaning of section 751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the 
Department determined that the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 
orders on pipe fittings from Brazil, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and China 
are extraordinarily complicated and 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.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Tapered Roller Bearings, 4 Inches and Under From Japan, 
et. al.: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 42672 (August 5, 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 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 margins of dumping 
likely to prevail if the order were revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are discussed 
below. In addition, parties' comments with respect to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins 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 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 the order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested 
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In these instant 
reviews, the Department did not receive a substantive 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 the substantial decline (or cessation, with respect to 
Brazil) in the volume of imports of pipe fittings from the subject 
countries following the issuance of the orders demonstrates the 
inability of the producers from subject countries to sell in the United 
States at any significant volume without dumping. The domestic 
interested parties argue further that revocation of these antidumping 
duty orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of 
dumping by Brazilian, Taiwanese, Japanese, Thai,

[[Page 67850]]

and Chinese producers/manufacturers. They support this argument with 
evidence showing that, since the imposition of the orders, respondents 
have generally reduced their shipments to the United States. Therefore, 
they assert, were the antidumping duty orders revoked, it is likely 
that Brazilian, Taiwanese, Japanese, Thai, and Chinese producers would 
need to dump in order to sell their pipe fittings in any significant 
quantities in the United States.

Brazil

    With respect to subject merchandise from Brazil, the domestic 
interested parties maintain that, in the years preceding the order, 
Brazil was a major foreign supplier of the subject merchandise to the 
U.S. market. Following the issuance of the order, they assert, 
Brazilian imports of the subject merchandise dropped sharply, and since 
1992 have ceased completely. Furthermore, the domestic interested 
parties comment, deposit rates for Brazilian pipe fitting manufacturers 
continue to exist at 52.25 percent. In conclusion, they assert, 
cessation of imports and high dumping margins demonstrate that 
Brazilian manufacturers cannot maintain a presence in the U.S. market 
without dumping at levels above de minimis.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\  See June 1, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic 
Interested Parties regarding pipe fittings from Brazil at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taiwan

    The domestic interested parties assert that all four Taiwanese 
respondents have had dumping margins well above de minimis levels since 
the issuance of the order. In addition, they note that in the years 
preceding the order Taiwan was a leading exporter of the subject 
merchandise to the U.S. market. They argue that, following the issuance 
of the order, imports from Taiwan dropped to a level far below their 
pre-order level and have never been more than 55 percent of their pre-
order level. The domestic interested parties conclude that Taiwanese 
importers need to dump pipe fittings in the U.S. market in order to 
sell at pre-order volumes. To corroborate this conclusion, the domestic 
interested parties note that the dumping margins for two Taiwanese 
manufacturers are extraordinarily high and they have never availed 
themselves of the administrative review process to demonstrate that 
their dumping has abated.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\  See June 1, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic 
Interested Parties regarding pipe fittings from Taiwan at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Japan:

    The domestic interested parties argue that the imposition of the 
antidumping duty order had a dramatic effect on subject import volumes 
from Japan. They indicate that in the years following the order, 
imports of the subject merchandise from Japan dropped by nearly 95 
percent. Moreover, they assert, import volumes of the subject pipe 
fittings from Japan have remained low, relative to the pre-order levels 
and the dumping margins for Japanese manufacturers remain very high, 
ranging from 30.83 to 65.81 percent. In sum, the domestic interested 
parties argue, the dramatic decline in import volumes following the 
imposition of the order in conjunction with the fact that Japanese 
manufactures never availed themselves of the administrative review 
process to demonstrate that dumping has ceased or abated provides clear 
evidence that the Japanese producers are incapable of selling at fair 
value in the U.S. market.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\  See June 1, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic 
Interested Parties regarding pipe fittings from Japan at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thailand

    With respect to imports of the subject merchandise from Thailand, 
the domestic interested parties assert that imports declined 
significantly after the imposition of the order and have remained at 
relatively low levels ever since. In fact, the domestic interested 
parties argue that by the time the order was published imports were 
only 68.3 percent of their pre-order levels. Therefore, despite the 
fact that one major manufacturer was originally exempt from the order, 
they contend that it is evident that Thai manufacturers need to dump 
pipe fittings in the U.S. market in order to sell at pre-order levels. 
To corroborate this conclusion the domestic interested parties argue 
that the only Thai supplier to have de minimis margins in the original 
investigation was forced to resort to dumping at a margin of 38 percent 
three years later in order to sell in the U.S. market.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\  See June 1, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic 
Interested Parties regarding pipe fittings from Thailand at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

China

    With respect to subject merchandise from China, the domestic 
interested parties maintain that, in the year the order was imposed, 
imports from China fell from approximately 30 million pounds the year 
before to 113,000 pounds. They argue further that, in the years 
following the imposition of the order, average import volumes of the 
subject merchandise were more than 99.5 percent lower than in the years 
proceeding the issuance of the order. Therefore, the domestic 
interested parties argue that the near cessation of imports from China 
demonstrates that Chinese manufacturers need to dump pipe fittings in 
the U.S. market in order to sell at pre-order volumes. To support this 
conclusion the domestic interested parties assert that dumping margins 
from Chinese manufacturers are extraordinarily high, ranging from 35.06 
to 182.90 percent. Yet, they contend, Chinese manufacturers never 
availed themselves of the administrative review process to demonstrate 
that their dumping has ceased or abated. They add that the Department's 
affirmative anti-circumvention determination 18 shows that 
when Chinese manufacturers are confronted with the discipline of an 
order they resort to illegitimate means to participate in the U.S. 
market.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from the 
People's Republic of China; Affirmative Final Determination of 
Circumvention of Antidumping Duty Order, 59 FR 15155 (March 31, 
1994).
    \19\  See June 1, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic 
Interested Parties regarding pipe fittings from China at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Discussion

    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 or imports ceased 
after the issuance of the order, the Department may reasonably infer 
that dumping would continue or recur if the discipline were removed. As 
pointed out above, dumping margins at levels above de minimis continue 
to exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from Brazil, Taiwan, 
Japan, Thailand, and China. With respect to Brazil, imports have ceased 
completely.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considers the volume of imports before and after issuance of the order. 
As outlined in each respective section above, the domestic interested 
parties argue that a significant decline in the volume of imports of 
the subject merchandise from Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and China (and a 
cessation of imports with regard to Brazil) since the imposition of the 
orders provides further evidence that dumping would continue if the 
orders were revoked. In their substantive responses, the domestic 
interested parties provided statistics demonstrating the decline in 
import volumes of pipe fittings from Brazil,

[[Page 67851]]

Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, and China. The Department agrees with the 
domestic interested parties' arguments that imports of the subject 
merchandise fell sharply and ceased in Brazil's case after the orders 
were imposed and never regained pre-order volumes.
    As noted above, in conducting its sunset reviews, the Department 
considered the weighted-average dumping margins and volume of imports 
in determining whether revocation of these antidumping duty orders 
would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Based on this 
analysis, the Department finds that the existence of dumping margins at 
levels above de minimis and a reduction (or cessation) in export 
volumes after the issuance of the order is highly probative of the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate 
above de minimis continues in effect for exports of the subject 
merchandise by all known Brazilian, Taiwanese, Japanese, 
Thai,20 and Chinese manufacturers/exporters. Therefore, 
given that dumping has continued over the life of the orders, import 
volumes have declined significantly or ceased after the imposition of 
the order, respondent parties have waived participation, and absent 
argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that 
dumping is likely to continue or recur if the orders were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted above, AST was excluded from the 1992 order on 
pipe fittings from Thailand but was found to be dumping in a later 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that normally 
it will 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.) To date, the Department has not issued any duty-absorption 
findings in any of these five cases.
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
recommended that, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department provide to the Commission the company-specific margins from 
the original investigations. Moreover, regarding companies not reviewed 
in the original investigations, the domestic interested parties 
suggested that the Department report the ``all others'' rates included 
in the original investigations.
    The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties. The 
Department finds that the margins calculated in the original 
investigations are probative of the behavior of Brazilian, Taiwanese, 
Japanese, Thai, and Chinese manufacturers/exporters if the orders were 
revoked as they are the only margins which reflect their actions absent 
the discipline of the order.
    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin we indicated that, consistent with 
the SAA at 889-90 and the House Report at 63, declining imports 
accompanied by the continued existence of dumping margins, or the 
cessation of imports after the order, provides a strong indication that 
dumping would be likely to continue, because such evidence indicates 
that the particular exporter needs to dump to sell at pre-order 
volumes. Based on our review of the information submitted by the 
interested parties, data from our original investigations, and 
subsequent administrative reviews, we determine that Taiwanese, 
Japanese, Thai, and Chinese pipe fitting manufacturers have continued 
to dump with the discipline of the order in place. In contrast, 
Brazilian pipe fitting manufacturers have ceased exporting the subject 
merchandise completely. This implies that these pipe-fitting 
manufacturers could not sell the subject merchandise in the United 
States at pre-order volumes without resorting to dumping.
    Therefore, the Department will report to the Commission the 
company-specific and all others rates from the original investigations 
as contained in the Final Results of Reviews 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 likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil:
All Manufacturers/Producers/exporters......................        52.25
Taiwan:
Rigid......................................................         6.84
C.M........................................................         8.57
Gei Bay....................................................        87.30
Chup Hsin..................................................        87.30
All Others.................................................        49.46
Japan:
Awajoi Sangyo, K.K.........................................        30.83
Nippon Benkan Kogyo, Ltd. Co...............................        65.81
All Others.................................................        62.79
Thailand: 21
Thai Benkan Company........................................        50.84
TTU Industrial Corp., Ltd..................................        10.68
Awaji Sangyo Co., Ltd......................................        38.41
All Others.................................................        39.10
China:
China North Industries Corporation.........................       154.72
Jilin Provincial Machinery & Equipment Import & Export             75.23
 Corp......................................................
Liaoning Machinery & Equipment Import Export Corp..........       134.79
Liaoning Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp............       103.70
Shenyang Billiongold Pipe Fittings Co. Ltd.................       110.39
Shandong Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp............        35.06
Shenyang Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corp;             182.90
 Lianoning Metals; Shenzhen Machinery Industry Corp.; and
 All Others................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 AST was excluded from this order. Although a dumping margin was later
  found, an order was not imposed against AST as a result of the
  Commission's negative injury determination.

    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. 99-31426 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P