[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67868-67870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31431]



[[Page 67868]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-559-502]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Light-Walled 
Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Singapore

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of Expedited Sunset Review: Light-
walled rectangular pipe and tube from Singapore.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Singapore (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 
adequate substantive response 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 sunset 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 Result of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun W. Cho 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 in 19 CFR Part 351 (1998) 
in general. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to 
the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the 
Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3--Policies Regarding the Conduct of 
Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

Scope

    The subject merchandise under consideration is light-walled 
rectangular pipes and tubes (``rectangular pipes'') from Singapore, 
which are mechanical pipes and tubes or welded carbon steel pipes and 
tubes of rectangular (including square) cross-section, having a wall 
thickness of less than 0.156 inch.
    Light-walled rectangular pipes and tubes are currently classifiable 
under item number 7306.60.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS item number is provided for 
convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description 
of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

History of the Order

    The antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipes and 
tubes from Singapore was published in the Federal Register on November 
13, 1986 (51 FR 41142). In that order, the Department determined that 
the weighted-average dumping margins for Steel Tubes of Singapore, Ltd. 
(``PTE'') as well as for all others are 12.03 percent. The Department 
has not conducted any administrative review since that time. We note 
that the Department has not conducted any investigation with respect to 
duty absorption regarding the exports of the subject merchandise. The 
order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the 
subject merchandise.

Background

    On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on rectangular pipes from Singapore (64 FR 
23596) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received, 
on May 18, 1999, a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of members 
of The Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports (``CPTI'') 1 
within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. In its Notice of Intent to Participate, the CPTI notes 
that none of its members is related to foreign producers and exporters, 
nor are any of its members an importer of the subject merchandise 
within the meaning of 771(9)(B) of the Act. The members of the CPTI 
claimed interest party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as 
producers and manufacturers of the domestic like product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CPTI is a trade association on whose behalf the original 
petition was filed. The members, who are participating in the 
instant review, are California Steel and Tube, Hannibal Industries 
Inc. Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Leavitt 
Tube, Vest Inc., and Western Tube and Conduit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received a complete substantive response from the CPTI on June 
2, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations 
under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). In its substantive response, the CPTI 
noted that it participated in the original investigation. (See June 2, 
1999, Substantive Response of the CPTI at 2.) We did not receive a 
substantive response from any respondent interested parties to this 
proceeding. Consequently, pursuant to section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of 
the Sunset Regulations, 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). Therefore, on September 7, 1999, the Department determined that 
the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty order on rectangular pipes 
from Singapore is 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.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 order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in making this 
determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average 
dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews 
and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period 
before and the period after the issuance of the antidumping order, and 
shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the 
Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail 
if the order is revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed 
below. In addition, the CPTI's comments with respect to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are

[[Page 67869]]

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 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 its substantive response, the CPTI argues that revocation of the 
antidumping order will result in resumption of sales of the subject 
merchandise at less-than-fair value by margins equivalent to or greater 
than those found in the original investigation. (See, June 2, 1999 
Substantive Response of the CPTI at 2 & 3.) While arguing that a 
cessation of imports after the issuance of an antidumping order is 
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping, the CPTI provided data which indicate that imports of the 
subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the antidumping duty 
order.3 Based on the aforementioned data, the CPTI asserts 
that imports of the subject merchandise have ceased since the issuance 
of the antidumping duty order, and therefore the Department should find 
that dumping is likely to recur or continue should the order be 
revoked. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\  The CPTI compares the import volumes of the subject 
merchandise prior to the order, 2700 tons in 1985 to zero in 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to U.S. International Trade Commission Trade Data, which 
integrates tariff and trade data from the Department, the U.S. 
Treasury, and the U.S. International Trade Commission, soon after the 
issuance of the antidumping order, the volume of imports of the subject 
merchandise fell drastically--the average volume of imports of the 
subject merchandise between 1989 and 1991 is 37 metric tons. This is 
less than 1.5 percent of 1985 pre-order volume of over 2700 metric 
ton.4 Furthermore, the volume of imports of the subject 
merchandise for the period of seven years, 1992-1998, is zero. As a 
result, the Department agrees with the CPTI's claim that, after the 
issuance of the order, imports of the subject merchandise ceased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This 1985 import volume was supplied by the CPTI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Department normally will determine that the 
cessation of imports after the issuance of the order is highly 
probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.
    In conclusion, inasmuch as the respondent interested parties waived 
their right to participate in this review, the deposit rates continue 
to exist, and imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the 
imposition of the order, we find that revocation of the antidumping 
duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping.

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it 
normally 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.)
    The Department, in its notice of the antidumping duty order on 
rectangular pipes from Singapore, established both company-specific and 
all-others weighted-average dumping margins of 12.03 percent for all 
imports of the subject merchandise from Singapore (51 FR 41142, 
November 13, 1986). We note that, to date, the Department has not 
issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
    The CTPI urges the Department to determine that the magnitude of 
the dumping margins that are likely to prevail, if the order is 
revoked, should be those from the original investigation. (See the 
CTPI's June 2, 1999, substantive response.) We agree with the CPTI. 
Absent argument and evidence to the contrary, we find the margins 
calculated in the original investigation are probative of the behavior 
of Singaporean producers/exporters if the order were revoked, as those 
are the only margins which reflect the behavior of Singaporean 
producers/exporters absent the discipline of the order. Therefore, we 
will report to the Commission the company-specific and all-others 
margins reported in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

    Based on the above analysis, the Department finds that revocation 
of the antidumping order would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Tubes of Singapore (PTE), Ltd........................        12.03
All others.................................................        12.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.


[[Page 67870]]


    Dated: November 29, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31431 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P