[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5317-5319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2420]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-427-811]


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

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

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

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

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 France (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 a waiver of 
participation 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 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 the 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 France. 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

[[Page 5318]]

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 France was published in the 
Federal Register on January 28, 1994 (59 FR 4022). In that order, the 
Department determined that the weighted-average dumping margins for 
Imphy, S.A. (``Imphy''), Ugine-Savoie (``Ugine''), and all others are 
24.51 percent.\1\ Since that time, the Department has completed several 
administrative 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 Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: 
Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rods from France, 59 FR 4022 (January 
28, 1994).
    \2\ See Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From France; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 47874 
(September 11, 1996), as amended, Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod 
from France; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 61 FR 58523 (November 15, 1996); Certain 
Stainless Steel Wire Rod From France; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 7206 (February 18, 1997), as 
amended, Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from France; Amended Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 25915 (May 
12, 1997); Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From France; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 30185 (June 
3, 1998), as amended, Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod from France; 
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 
FR 45998 (August 28, 1998); as amended, Certain Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod from France; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 64 FR 47169 (August 30, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on SSWR from France (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 parties claim interest 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. However, Ugine, Imphy, and their 
affiliated U.S. importers, Metalimphy Alloys Corp (``MAC'') and 
Techalloy Company jointly submitted a waiver of participation in the 
instant review. (See the respondent interested parties' August 2, 1999, 
waiver of participation.) 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 France 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

[[Page 5319]]

to continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested 
party waives its participation in the sunset review. In the instant 
review, the respondent interested parties submitted a waiver of 
participation.
    The domestic interested parties contend that revocation of the 
order would be likely to lead to continued dumping by French 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise. In support of their 
argument, the domestic interested parties note that the Department 
found French manufacturers/exporters dumping in every administrative 
review of the order. Moreover, the domestic interested parties indicate 
that the order has had a significant effect on the import volumes of 
subject merchandise. Specifically, the domestic interested parties 
state that, prior to the initiation of the investigation, the average 
import volume for the three year (1990-1992) period was 14.16 million 
pounds but that, subsequent to the order, the average import volume for 
the three year (1994-1996) period was 8.7 million pounds--a 38.6 
percent decline. (See August 2, 1999, substantive response of the 
domestic interested parties at 14-17 and 18-20.) Since the import 
volumes of the subject merchandise decreased substantially and since 
the existence of dumping margins after the issuance of the order is 
highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping, the domestic interested parties contend the Department should 
conclude that French manufacturers/exporters cannot export SSWR to the 
United States without dumping and, hence, that revocation of the order 
would be likely to lead to continued dumping. Id.
    The domestic interested parties' argument concerning the import 
volumes of the subject merchandise is in accord with 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 10,103 metric tons. In the year 
following the order, 1994, the import volume decreased to 5,346 metric 
tons--a decline of about 47 percent. In addition, from 1994 to 1998, 
the average import volume of the subject merchandise was about 3,914 
metric tons, which is about 39 percent of the pre-order volume. 
Therefore, we determine that import volumes of the subject merchandise 
declined substantially after the issuance of the order.
    As indicated in section II.A.3 of the Sunshine Policy Bulletin 
reflecting the SAA at 889-890, Senate Report at 52, and the House 
Report at 63-64, the Department considered whether dumping continued at 
any level above de minimis after the issuance of the order. If 
companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order in place, 
the Department may reasonably infer that dumping would continue were 
the discipline of the order removed. After examining the published 
findings with respect to the weighted-average dumping margins in 
previous administrative reviews,\4\ we determine that French 
manufacturers/exporters continued to dump the subject merchandise after 
the issuance of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 2, supra. In its first administrative review of 
the order, as amended, the Department determined that French 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise were dumping the 
subject merchandise at the weighted-average margin of 14.15; in the 
second administrative review, as amended, 7.29; and in the third 
administrative review, as amended, 7.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, inasmuch as dumping continued after the issuance of 
the order, import volumes of the subject merchandise have declined 
significantly after the imposition of the order, 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 France, 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 find that the margins calculated in the 
original investigation are probative of the behavior of French 
manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise were the order 
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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imphy......................................................        24.39
Ugine-Savoie...............................................        24.39
All others.................................................        24.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 00-2420 Filed 2-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P