[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5315-5317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2419]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-808]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Stainless Steel Wire 
Rods From India

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

ACTION:  Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Stainless 
steel wire rods from India.

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

SUMMARY:  On July 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order 
on stainless steel wire rods from India (64 FR 35588) 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1698 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

Effective Date:  February 3, 2000.

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 (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

    Imports covered by this order are shipments of stainless steel wire 
rods (``SSWR'') from India. SSWR are products which are hot-rolled or 
hot-rolled annealed and/or pickled rounds, squares, octagons, hexagons 
or other shapes, in coils. SSWR are made of alloy steels containing, by 
weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of 
chromium, with or without other elements. These products are only 
manufactured by hot-rolling and are normally sold in coiled form, and 
are of solid cross-section. The majority of SSWR sold in the United 
States are round in cross-section shape, annealed and pickled. The most 
common size is 5.5 millimeters in diameter. The SSWR subject to this 
review are currently classifiable under subheadings 7221.00.0005, 
7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0040, 7221.00.0045, 
7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, and 7221.00.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').
    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 SSWR from India was published in the 
Federal Register on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63335). In that order, the 
Department determined that the weighted-average dumping margins for 
Mukand Ltd.(``Mukand''), Sunstar Metals Ltd. (``Sunstar''), Grand 
Foundry, Ltd. (``Grand Foundry''), and all others were 48.80 
percent.\1\ Since that time, the Department has completed one 
administrative review and two new shipper reviews.\2\ We note that the 
Department has not conducted any duty-absorption investigation with 
respect to the subject merchandise. The order remains in effect for all 
manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel Wire 
Rods from India, 58 FR 63335 (December 1, 1993).
    \2\ See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Final 
Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 
38976 (July 21, 1997); and Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 
India; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New 
Shipper Reviews, 64 FR 856 (January 6, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on SSWR from India (64 FR 35588) pursuant to 
section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a joint Notice of 
Intent to Participate on behalf of AL Tech Specialty Steel Corp., 
Carpenter Technology Corp., Republic Engineered Steels, Inc., Talley 
Metals Technology, Inc., and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO/CLC (hereinafter referred to as ``domestic interested parties'') on 
July 16, 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/exporters or to domestic importers of the 
subject merchandise, nor are they importers of the subject merchandise 
within the meaning of section 771(4)(B) of the Act.
    We received a complete substantive response from the domestic 
interested parties on August 2, 1999, within the 30-day deadline 
specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The 
domestic interested

[[Page 5316]]

parties claim interested party status under sections 771(9)(C) and 
771(9)(D) of the Act as producers/manufacturers of a domestic like 
product and as a union representing workers engaged in the production 
of the like product in the United States, respectively. The domestic 
interested parties note that each of the domestic interested parties 
has been involved in these proceedings since the investigation and 
that, as a group, they are willing to participate fully in the instant 
review.
    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, we 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 November 16, 1999, the Department determined that 
the sunset review of the antidumping duty order on SSWR from India is 
extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for completion 
of the final results of this review until not later than January 27, 
2000, 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 62167 (November 16, 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 continue or resume if the 
antidumping order on SSWR from India is revoked. In support of their 
argument, the domestic interested parties compare the import volumes of 
the subject merchandise for the period before and the period after the 
issuance of the order. The domestic interested parties note that the 
import volumes of the subject merchandise declined substantially after 
the discipline of the order was put into effect. Specifically, the 
domestic interested parties indicate that, during the three-year period 
(1990-1992) prior to the initiation of the investigation, the average 
import volume of the subject merchandise was 4.12 million pounds 
annually; whereas, during the three-year period (1994-1996) following 
the imposition of the order, the average annual import volume of the 
subject merchandise declined to 49,259 pounds--a 98.8 percent decline. 
(See August 2, 1999, substantive response of the domestic interested 
parties at 14-17 and 20-21.)
    Although the domestic interested parties acknowledge that the 
Department determined that, in its new shipper review, Isibars, Viraj, 
and Panchmahal, and, in its administrative review, Mukand was not 
dumping during the respective review period,\4\ the domestic interested 
parties urge that the Department should consider those zero dumping 
margins in conjunction with the fact that imports of the subject 
merchandise declined substantially since the issuance of the order. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 2, supra. The Department determined in its new 
shipper reviews that Isibars Limited (``Isibars''), Viraj Group 
(``Viraj''), and Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (``Panchmahal'') have not 
sold the subject merchandise at less than normal value during the 
respective relevant period of review. Also, the Department 
determined in its lone administrative review that Mukand, Ltd. 
(``Mukand'') did not dump during the review period (1996-1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, the domestic interested parties contend that, since 
Indian manufacturers/exporters have not been able to export SSWR to the 
Unites States with the discipline of the order in place, the Department 
should determine that Indian manufacturers/exporters cannot sell the 
subject merchandise without dumping; i.e., dumping of the subject 
merchandise would be likely to resume or continue were the order 
revoked. Id.
    The domestic interested parties' argument concerning the import 
volumes of the subject merchandise is supported by the data in the 
Commission's Interactive Tariff and Trade Data Web. In the year 
preceding the initiation of the investigation, 1992, the import volume 
of the subject merchandise was 3,941 metric tons. In the year following 
the order, 1994, the import volume fell to 19 metric tons--a decline of 
more than 99 percent. From 1994 to 1998, the average import volume of 
the subject merchandise was about 64 metric tons, which is less than 1 
percent of the pre-order volume. Therefore, we determine that import of 
the subject merchandise declined substantially after the issuance of 
the order.
    As indicated in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin 
reflecting the SAA at 889-890, Senate Report at 52, and the House 
Report at 63-64, the Department considers whether dumping continued at 
any level above de minimis

[[Page 5317]]

after the issuance of the order. If companies continue dumping with the 
discipline of an order in place, the Department may reasonably infer 
that dumping would continue were the discipline removed. Additionally, 
if dumping was eliminated and import volumes declined significantly, 
the Department normally will determine that dumping is likely to 
continue or recur. Although the cash deposit rate for Viraj, 
Panchmahal, and Mukand is currently zero, the cash deposit rates for 
all other producers/exporters is above de minimis. Further, the volume 
of imports has declined significantly since the issuance of the order.
    In conclusion, inasmuch as import volumes of the subject 
merchandise have declined significantly after the issuance of the 
order, cash deposit rate remains at a level above de minimis for some 
exporters, and the respondent interested parties waived their right to 
participate in this review, we determine 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 SSWR 
from India, established both company-specific and all-others weighted-
average dumping margins.\5\ We note that, to date, the Department has 
not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See footnote 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The domestic interested parties assert that the likely-to-prevail 
margins, if the order is revoked, should be those from the original 
investigation. (See the domestic interested parties' June 2, 1999, 
substantive response at 24-25.)
    We agree with the domestic interested parties. Absent argument and 
evidence to the contrary, we determine that, were the order revoked, 
the margins calculated in the original investigation are indicative of 
the behavior of Indian manufacturers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise because the margins from the original investigation are the 
only ones that reflect Indian manufacturers/exporters' 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukand, Ltd................................................        48.80
Sunstar Metals, Ltd........................................        48.80
Grand Foundry, Ltd.........................................        48.80
All others.................................................        48.80
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: January 27, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2419 Filed 2-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P