[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67873-67876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31432]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-583-008]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Small Diameter Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan.

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


[[Page 67874]]


ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Small 
diameter carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on 
small diameter carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan (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 C.F.R. 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 subject merchandise under consideration is welded carbon steel 
pipes and tubes of circular cross section, from Taiwan (``steel 
pipes''), with walls not thinner than 0.065 inch and outside diameter 
0.375 inch or more but not over 4\1/2\ inches. These products are 
commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipe and are produced 
to various American Society of Testing Materials specifications, most 
notably A-53, A-120, or A-135.
    Standard pipe is currently classified under Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') item numbers 7306.30.5025, 
7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, and 7306.30.5055.
    The HTSUS item numbers are 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 small diameter carbon steel pipes and 
tubes from Taiwan was published in the Federal Register on May 7, 1984 
(49 FR 19369). In that order, the Department determined that the 
weighted-average dumping margins for Kao Hsing Chang, Tai Feng, Yieh 
Hsing, and all others are 9.7, 43.7, 38.5, and 9.7 percent, 
respectively. Since that time, the Department has completed several 
administrative reviews, one revision of a review, and is currently 
conducting a sixth administrative review, for which the Department has 
published the preliminary results. 1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 
Taiwan; Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty 
Order, 51 FR 43946 (December 5, 1986); Revised Final Results of 
Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order; Circular Welded 
Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan, 53 FR 51128 (December 20, 
1988); Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 
Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 53 
FR 41218 (October 20, 1988); Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan; Amendment to Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 FR 1752 (January 17, 
1989); Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From 
Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 54 
FR 46432 (November 3, 1989); Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination not to Revoke in Part, 56 FR 
8741 (March 1, 1991); and Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes 
and Tubes From Taiwan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 62 FR 52971 (October 10, 1997). Currently, 
the Department is conducting an administrative review covering the 
period between May 1, 1997 and April 30, 1998, and has issued 
preliminary results of review. See, Certain Circular Welded Carbon 
Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Recission of 
Review, 64 FR 30306 (June 7, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on steel pipes from Taiwan (64 FR 23596) 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a joint 
Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of Allied Tube and Conduit 
Corp., 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. 
(hereinafter referred to as ``domestic interested parties'') on May 18, 
1999, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the 
Sunset Regulations. In their Notice of Intent to Participate, the 
domestic interested parties note that they are not related to foreign 
producers and exporters, nor are they importers of the subject 
merchandise within the meaning of 771(4)(B) of the Act.
    We received a complete substantive response from the domestic 
interested parties on June 2, 1999, within the 30-day deadline 
specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The 
domestic interested parties claim interest party status under section 
771(9)(C) of the Act as producers or manufacturers of a domestic like 
product. The domestic interested parties note that while some companies 
participated in the original investigation and a particular company in 
previous administrative reviews, others are partaking in the instant 
review for the first time.2 We did not receive a substantive 
response from any respondent interested party 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Allied Tube and Conduit Corp. and Western Tube and Conduit 
participated in the original investigation. Sawhill Tubular Division 
participated in subsequent administrative reviews. The rest of the 
interested parties are participating in the ongoing review for the 
first time. (See June 2, 1999, Substantive Response of Domestic 
interested parties at 3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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., order in effect on January 1, 
1995). Therefore, on September 7, 1999, the Department determined that 
the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on steel pipes from 
Taiwan is extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for 
completion of the final results of this review until not later than

[[Page 67875]]

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 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 comments of the domestic interested parties, 
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 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.
    The domestic interested parties argue that the sales of the subject 
merchandise at less-than-fair value would resume if the antidumping 
order were revoked. (See June 2, 1999 Substantive Response of the 
domestic interested parties at 3.) In support of their argument, the 
domestic interested parties proffer data pertaining to the import 
volumes and dumping margins of the subject merchandise during the 
relevant period. Specifically, the domestic interested parties note 
that the volume of imports of the subject merchandise immediately and 
dramatically decreased after the discipline of the antidumping order 
was put into effect. Id. Furthermore, the domestic interested parties 
indicate that, at least for some companies, the dumping margins have 
continuously existed at levels above de minimis since the issuance of 
the order. Id.
    Domestic interested parties' argument concerning the import volumes 
of the subject merchandise are supported by the data in both U.S. 
Census Bureau IM146 reports (``IM146'') and U.S. International Trade 
Commission Interactive Tariff and Trade Data Web (``ITC Data Web''). A 
year before the issuance of antidumping order, 1983, the import volume 
of the subject merchandise was 118,510 metric tons. In the year of the 
order, in 1984, the import volume fell to 3,250 metric tons--a drop of 
more than 97 percent. From 1985 to 1994, although the volumes of import 
of the subject merchandise varied widely,4 the average 
import volume of the subject merchandise was 9,191 metric tons, which 
is less than 8 percent of the pre-order volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In 1986, the import volume of the subject merchandise was 
48,027 metric tons (about 40 percent of pre-order volume). In 1993, 
however, the volume of the subject merchandise dropped to zero. See, 
IM146 reports and ITC Data Web.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Sunset Policy Bulletin notes, the continued existence of 
dumping margins with the discipline of an order in place is highly 
indicative of the likelihood that dumping would continue or recur if 
the discipline is removed. (See the Sunset Policy Bulletin, 63 FR at 
18872, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64.) The Department 
has issued five final results of administrative reviews with respect to 
the antidumping order under consideration. Also, the Department 
currently is conducting an administrative review and has issued its 
preliminary results.5 Except in one review, in which the 
Department did not find any dumping by the companies reviewed, the 
Department found the dumping margins above the de minimis level in all 
other reviews. As a result, we find that, since the issuance of the 
antidumping duty order, dumping of steel pipes from Taiwan has 
continued at margins above the de minimis level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See footnote 1 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, inasmuch as the respondent interested parties waived 
their right to participate in this review, import volumes of the 
subject merchandise have declined significantly after the imposition of 
the order, and dumping of the subject merchandise continued at margins 
above de minimis, 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 will 
normally provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in 
the final determination in the original investigation. Further, for 
companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not 
begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department 
normally will provide a margin based on the all-others rate from the 
investigation. (See section II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) 
Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated 
margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty absorption 
determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and 3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.)
    The Department, in its notice of the antidumping duty order on 
steel pipes from Taiwan, established both company-specific and all-
others weighted-average dumping margins (49 FR 19369, May 7, 
1984).6 We note that, to date, the Department has not issued 
any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes 
From Taiwan; Antidumping Duty Order, 49 FR 19369 (May 7, 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The domestic interested parties urge the Department to find that 
the dumping

[[Page 67876]]

margins likely to prevail if the order is revoked should be those from 
the original investigation. (See the domestic interested parties' June 
2, 1999 substantive response.) We agree with the domestic interested 
parties. Absent argument and evidence to the contrary, we find that the 
margins calculated in the original investigation are probative of the 
behavior of Taiwanese producers/exporters of the subject merchandise if 
the order were revoked because the margins from the original 
investigation are the only ones that reflect their behavior absent the 
discipline of the order. Therefore, the Department 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kao Hsing Chang............................................          9.7
Tai Feng...................................................     \1\ 43.7
Yieh Hsing.................................................         38.5
All-others.................................................         9.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tai Feng Industries supposedly went out of business in November
  1983. See, Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan;
  Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 51
  FR 43946 (December 5, 1986). However, in response to the Department's
  request, the Economic Division of the Taipei Economic and Cultural
  Representative Office in the United States indicated that it cannot
  acquire clear information regarding Tai Feng Industries.

    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. 99-31432 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P