[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67854-67858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31428]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-809, A-580-809, A-201-805, A-583-814, A-307-805]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain Circular
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico,
Taiwan, and Venezuela
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Certain
circular-welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, the Republic of
Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
on certain circular-welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, the
Republic of Korea (``Korea''), Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela 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
responses from respondent interested parties in each of these reviews,
the Department conducted expedited sunset 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 levels indicated in the Final Result of Reviews section of this
notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit 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) 482-5050
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 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
[[Page 67855]]
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 these antidumping duty orders is
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Brazil, Korea,
Mexico, and Venezuela. The product consists of circular cross-section,
not more than 406.4mm (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 pipes and tubes
and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam,
natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating
systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other
related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing
applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing
used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-
bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm
equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is
also included in this order. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within
the physical description outlined above are included within the scope
of this investigation, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods,
boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws,
finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual
or triple certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a
kind used for oil and gas pipelines is also not included in this
investigation. Imports of the products covered by this order are
currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,
7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90. Although
the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,
our written description of the scope of these proceedings is
dispositive.
Scope Clarification: Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela
On March 21, 1996, in a final scope ruling, the Department
determined that: (i) Pipe certified to the API 5L line pipe
specification, and (ii) pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard pipe
specifications which fall within the physical parameters outlined in
the scope of the orders and enter as line pipe of a kind used for oil
and gas pipelines are outside the scope of the antidumping duty orders
on certain welded carbon steel non-alloy pipe from Brazil, Korea,
Mexico and Venezuela, irrespective of end use.1 Mexico--On
December 31, 1995, Tubacero International Corporation requested
clarification to determine whether circular welded carbon steel piping,
16 inches in outside diameter with \3/8\ inch wall thickness, for use
in extremely heavy load bearing applications, is within the scope of
the order. On April 25, 1996, the Department determined that circular
welded carbon steel piping, 16 inches in outside diameter with \3/8\
inch wall thickness, for use in extremely heavy load bearing
applications, is within the scope of the order (see Notice of Scope
Rulings, 61 FR 18381 (April 25, 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Final Negative Scope Determination of Scope Inquiry on
Certain Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the
Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela, 61 FR 11608 (March 21,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico--Pending Scope Clarification
Cierra Pipe, Incorporated submitted a request for a scope
clarification of the subject merchandise to determine whether line pipe
``shorts'', or ``old line pipe'' which has rushed and pitted after
sitting in storage, constitute line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas
pipelines or is pipe and tubed covered by the order (see 63 FR 59544
(November 4, 1998).
Mexico--Pending Anti-Circumvention Inquiry
The domestic interested parties requested a circumvention inquiry
to determine whether imports of: (i) Pipe certified to the American
Petroleum Institute (API) 5L line pipe specifications (API) 5L, and
(ii) pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe specifications and the
less stringent American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') A-
53 standard pipe specifications (dual certified pipe), falling within
the physical dimensions outlined in the scope of the order, are
circumventing the antidumping duty order (see 63 FR 41545 (August 4,
1998)).
History of the Orders
On September 17, 1992, the Department issued final determinations
of sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') on imports of certain
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico,
Taiwan, and Venezuela (57 FR 42940, 42942, 42953, 42961, and 42962,
respectively). On November 2, 1992, the Department published the Notice
of Antidumping Orders on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela, and
Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 57 FR
49453 (November 2, 1992). The order on Korea was subsequently amended
(see Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Determination, 60
FR 55833 (November 3, 1995)).
In the investigations, the Department estimated weighted-average
dumping margins that ranged from 4.91 percent to 103.38 percent ad
valorem. There have been no administrative reviews of the orders on
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Taiwan, and
Venezuela. The Department conducted two administrative reviews of the
order covering Korea and two administrative reviews of the order
covering from Mexico.2 The Department has not found duty
absorption for any country subject to these antidumping duty orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Circular Welded
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574
(October 27, 1997), Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of
Korea, 63 FR 32833 (June 16, 1998), as amended, 63 FR 39071 (July
21, 1998), Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 62 FR
37014 (July 10, 1997), and Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube
from Mexico, 63 FR 33041 (June 17, 1998), as amended, 63 FR 38370
(July 16, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The antidumping duty orders remain in effect for all producers and
exporters of the subject merchandise from Brazil, Korea, Mexico,
Taiwan, and Venezuela.
Background
On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act. On May 18, 1999, within the deadline specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulation, we received notices
of intent to participate from Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation,
Sawhill Tubular Division--Armco, Inc., Century Tube, IPSCO Tubular
Inc., LTV Steel Tubular Products, Maverick Tube Corporation, Sharon
Tube Company, Western Tube and Conduit, and Wheatland Tube Co.
(collectively ``the
[[Page 67856]]
domestic interested parties''). Each of these parties claimed status as
domestic interested parties on the basis that they are domestic
producers of the products subject to these orders. In its substantive
responses, the domestic interested parties assert that all parties
except IPSCO, LTV Tubular, and Maverick participated in the original
investigation and subsequent administrative reviews of the subject
orders. With respect to related party status, the domestic interested
parties state that they are not related to any foreign producers or
foreign exporters, and are not importers of the subject merchandise, or
related to importers of the subject merchandise.
Within the deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under
section 351.218(d)(3)(i), on June 2, 1999, the Department received
complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties. In
addition, we received a complete substantive response from, Tuberia
Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (``TUNA'') a Mexican producer/exporter of
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe in the sunset review of the order
on Mexico. TUNA stated it was not a participant in the original
investigation, however, it participated in the 1994-1995 administrative
review, and the 1997-1998 administrative review currently being
conducted by the Department. On June 2, 1999, the Korea Iron and Steel
Association (``KOSA'') and its individual members SeAH Steel
Corporation, Ltd., Sinho Steel Company, Hyundai Pipe Company, and Korea
Iron and Steel Company, waived their right to participate in the
Department's sunset review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from
Korea. On June 2, 1999, C.A. Conduven (``Conduven'') waived its right
to participate in the Department's sunset review of circular welded
non-alloy steel pipe from Venezuela.
On June 22, 1999, we informed the International Trade Commission
(``Commission'') that on the basis of inadequate responses from
respondent interested parties, we were conducting expedited sunset
reviews of these orders consistent with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).
(See Letter to Lynn Featherstone, Director, Office of Investigations
from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy.)
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). Therefore, on September 7, 1999, the Department determined that
the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on circular-welded
non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela
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.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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 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 this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent
reviews and import volume of the subject merchandise for the period
before the issuance of the antidumping duty orders and the period after
the issuance of the antidumping duty orders. Pursuant to section
752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide to the Commission
the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders are
revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping, and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.
In addition, the parties' comments with respect to the continuation or
recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margin are addressed in
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 basis for
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
Department indicates 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 reviews, the
Department either did not receive a response, or did receive a waiver,
from producers and exporters of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe
from Brazil, Korea, Taiwan, and Venezuela. Pursuant to section
351.218(d)(2)(iii) or section 351.218(d)(2)(i), as applicable, of the
Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.
In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties
assert that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on the subject
merchandise from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela, would be
likely to lead to continuation of dumping at margins equivalent to or
greater than the margins above found in the original investigations.
The domestic interested parties support their argument by stating that
after the issuance of the antidumping duty orders, dumping margins
above de minimis levels continued to exist. In addition, import volumes
declined significantly, and in some instances, no shipments were
reported. The domestic interested parties provided the Department the
following import statistics:
Brazil--In 1991 (the year prior to the imposition of the
antidumping duty order), shipment of Brazilian circular-welded non-
alloy steel pipe to the United States totaled 54,000 tons. After the
issuance of the order imports declined dramatically. By 1998, no
imports were reported.
Korea--Imports declined from 321,000 in 1991, to 174,000 in 1998.
Mexico--Imports declined from 48,000 tons in 1991, to 13,500 tons
in 1998.
Taiwan--Imports were over 38,000 tons in 1991, and in 1998, almost
ceased as the volume declined dramatically to 60 tons.
Venezuela--Imports accounted for over 16,000 tons in 1991. In 1998,
imports dropped significantly to 3,300 tons, down nearly 80 percent
compared to 1991 import volume.
[[Page 67857]]
The domestic interested parties, citing to the Department's Sunset
Policy Bulletin, state that existence of dumping margins after the
order, or the cessation of imports after the order, is highly probative
of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Therefore,
they argue that the continued existence of dumping margins coupled with
the significant decrease in imports, strongly indicates the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence of dumping should the antidumping duty
orders be revoked.
In its substantive response, TUNA, the only respondent in the
sunset review of the antidumping duty order of circular welded non-
alloy steel pipe from Mexico, argues that revocation of the antidumping
duty order would not result in continuation or recurrence of dumping.
TUNA basis its assertion on the decline of dumping margins and increase
in import volumes. TUNA argues that the Department, in the original
investigation, assigned Hylsa S.A. de C.V (``Hylsa'') (the only
respondent reviewed in the investigation) a 32.62 percent dumping
margin, and established an ``all others'' duty deposit rate of 32.62
percent.4 After the investigation, Hylsa's rate of 32.62
percent declined to a single digit level. Although TUNA was not a
participant in the original investigation, in the 1994-1995
administrative review, the Department assigned TUNA a 1.77 percent
dumping margin. TUNA argues that 1.77 percent (its current duty deposit
rate) is considered de minimis under the World Trade Organization
(``WTO'') Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``Antidumping Agreement'').
Therefore TUNA argues that the order should be revoked (see TUNA's
Substantive Response at 4). In addition, TUNA argues that import volume
and value of the subject merchandise from Mexico has increased
significantly in recent years. From 1993, the year after the imposition
of the order, to 1998, imports from Mexico more than tripled, from
approximately $2.5 million to approximately $7.8 million in 1998 (see
TUNA's Substantive Response at 10). In Attachment 3 and Attachment 5 of
its substantive response, TUNA provides its volume and value of exports
to the U.S., and its estimate of the percentage of exports to the U.S.
TUNA concludes that Mexican producers and exporters of the subject
merchandise can ship to the U.S. without dumping should the antidumping
duty order be revoked because dumping margins declined after the
issuance of the order and imports increased or remained steady.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico, 57 FR 42953
(September 17, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, TUNA argues that good cause exists to consider other
factors. TUNA argues that because the URAA presumes revocation unless
there is evidence that dumping will continue, a reasoned decision will
often require consideration of factors other than the dumping margin.
TUNA argues that in most cases it will be impossible for the Department
to render a reasoned determination without considering all relevant
information.
TUNA argues that in this case, the original dumping margin was
determined when domestic demand was at or near the bottom of a business
cycle of several years' duration. Since that time, demand has increased
steadily and is expected to continue to increase. TUNA notes that in
1996, the ITC issued a negative injury determination regarding imports
of circular welded non-alloy pipe from Romania and South Africa. TUNA
asserts that the domestic industry has clearly benefitted from
increases in construction activity and that the strong domestic demand
has enabled TUNA to achieve increasing volumes of exports. In this
situation, TUNA asserts that dumping is unlikely to continue or recur.
Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and
the House Report at 63-64 provide that the existence of dumping margins
after the order, or cessation of imports after the order, is highly
probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.
If companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order in place,
it is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the
discipline were removed. Further, as noted above, in determining
whether revocation of an order is likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping, the Department considers the margins determined
in the investigation and subsequent administrative reviews and volume
of imports.
With respect to dumping margins in the antidumping duty orders on
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico,
Taiwan, and Venezuela, we agree with the domestic interested parties
that margins above de minimis levels continued to exist. We disagree
with TUNA's assertion that its margin of 1.77 percent should be
considered de minimis for purposes of this sunset review. Both the
statue and regulation clearly provide that in reviews of orders, the
Department will threat as de minimis any weighted average dumping
margin that is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem (section 752 (c)(4)(B)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.106 (C)(1)). The 2.0 percent de minimis level
in Article 5.8 of the Antidumping Agreement applies only to
investigations, not reviews (see SAA at 844-45).
With respect to import volumes of the subject merchandise, our
analysis of import statistics covering total imports and company-
specific imports demonstrate that import volumes and values have
fluctuated over the life of these orders and have not reached pre-order
volumes for any of the subject countries. Although TUNA's imports
increased after the issuance of the order, its reported post-order
import volumes were nonetheless insignificant compared to its pre-order
volumes. Therefore, given that dumping margins above de minimis levels
were found to exist and continue in effect with respect to each of
these orders, and respondent interested parties waived their right to
participate in these (other than Mexico) reviews before the Department,
the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur
if the orders were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,
consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will
provide to the Commission a margin from the investigation because that
is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior or exporters
without the discipline of an order in place. Further, for companies not
specifically investigated or for companies that did not begin shipping
until after the order was issued, we 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 its substantive responses, the domestic interested parties argue
that the Department should report to the Commission the dumping margins
determined in the original investigations because these rates best
reflect the behavior of producers and exporters of circular welded non-
alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela
absent the antidumping duty orders.
With respect to the Mexican case, TUNA reasserts that the dumping
margins that are likely to prevail were the order revoked are de
minimis. Additionally, citing to the SAA (at 890-
[[Page 67858]]
891), TUNA notes that in certain instances, it may be more appropriate
to provide the Commission a more recently calculated margin. TUNA
argues that it is not appropriate to report the margins from the
original investigation where, as in this case, dumping margins
decreased and import volume remained steady or increased. TUNA argues
that the weighted-average dumping margins for Hylsa (the only
respondent in the investigation), declined to single digit levels, from
32.62 percent in the investigation to 2.99 percent in 1994-1995, and to
7.39 percent in 1995-1996. Further, TUNA notes that it was subject to
the all others rate until the 1994-1995 administrative review, when the
Department assigned TUNA a 1.77 percent dumping margin (its only
individual margin) (see 62 FR 37014, July 10, 1997)).
In addition, TUNA argues that dumping margins assigned in the
original investigation are inappropriate as indicators of the rates
that would be found upon revocation in light of changes in the
methodology used to calculate antidumping duty margins introduced by
the Uruguay Round. TUNA asserts that the use of margins that would not
be obtained under current law would be unfair and contrary to the
Antidumping Agreement.
With respect to duty absorption, TUNA notes although the Department
has not made any duty absorption findings, in the 1997-1998
administrative review, the petitioners requested a duty absorption
investigation.
As discussed above, we disagree with TUNA's assertion that a
dumping margin of 1.77 percent is de minimis. Further, we note that the
current deposit rates for Hylsa (7.39 percent) and all others Mexican
producers/exporters (32.63 percent) are not de minimis.
With respect to TUNA's argument concerning the magnitude of the
margin likely to prevail, we disagree. In the Sunset Policy Bulletin we
indicated that, consistent with the SAA at 889-90 and the House Report
at 63, we may determine, in cases where declining (or no) dumping
margins are accompanied by steady or increasing imports, that a more
recently calculated rate reflects that companies do not have to dump to
maintain market share in the United States and, therefore, that dumping
is less likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked. Further,
we noted that, in determining whether a more recently calculated margin
is probative of an exporters's behavior absent the discipline of an
order, we will normally consider the company's relative market share,
with such information to be provided by the parties. It is clear,
therefore, that in determining whether a more recently calculated
margin is probative of the behavior of exporters were the order to be
revoked, the Department considers company-specific exports and company-
specific margins. In its substantive response, TUNA provided the volume
and value of its exports to the United States for 1990 (the year prior
to the issuance of the order) and for years 1994 through 1998.
Additionally, for the years 1994 through 1998, TUNA reported its
exports as a percentage of total consumption imports of subject
merchandise from Mexico. This information shows the post-order exports
from TUNA continue to be significantly below TUNA's pre-order exports.
Additionally, although as TUNA argues, its exports in 1998 are greater
than its exports in 1994, TUNA's exports over this five-year period
have greatly fluctuated. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the use
of a more recently calculated rate is appropriate in this case.
Additionally, we find there is no basis to reject margins calculated in
an investigation because of subsequent changes in methodology. Such
changes do not invalidate margins calculated under prior methodology.
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties
concerning the margins likely to prevail if these orders were revoked.
Absent argument and evidence to the contrary, and consistent with the
Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine that the margins calculated in the
Department's original investigation are probative of the behavior of
Brazilian, Korean, Taiwanese, and Venezuelan producers and exporters of
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe without the discipline of the
orders in place. Further, based on the above analysis, we find that the
margins calculated in the original investigation covering Mexico are
probative of the behavior of Mexican producers and exporters of
circular welded non-ally steel pipe without the discipline of the
order. Therefore, we will report to the Commission the margins
indicated in the Final Results of the 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 be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturers/exporters (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persico Pizzamiglio S.A.................................... 103.38
All Others................................................. 103.38
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd................................ 4.62
Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.................................. 4.08
Masan Steel Tube Works Co., Ltd 11.63
Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 5.35
All Others................................................. 4.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hylsa, S.A. de C.V 32.62
All Others................................................. 32.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taiwan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kao Hsing Chang Iron & Steel Corporation................... 19.46
Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd............................. 27.65
All Others................................................. 23.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venezuela
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.A. Conduven.............................................. 52.51
All Others................................................. 52.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These notices 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 regulation.
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 sanctionable
violation.
These five-year (``sunset'') reviews and notice are published 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. 99-31428 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P