[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5319-5322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2421]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-819]


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

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

[[Page 5320]]


ACTION:  Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Stainless 
Steel Wire Rods From Brazil.

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

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 Brazil (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, 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 Brazil. 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 Brazil was published in the 
Federal Register on January 28, 1994 (59 FR 4021). In that order, the 
Department determined that the weighted-average dumping margins for 
Eletrometal-Metal Especials S.A. (``Eletrometal''), Acos Finos Piratini 
S.A. (``Piratini''), Acos Villares S.A. (``Villares''), and all others 
are 24.63, 26.50, 26.50, and 25.88 percent ad valorem, respectively. 
\1\ Since that time, the Department has not completed administrative 
review of the order. We note that the Department has not conducted any 
duty-absorption investigations 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 Brazil, 59 FR 4021 (January 28, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the 
antidumping duty order on SSWR from Brazil (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 manufacturers/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 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 Brazil 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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

[[Page 5321]]

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 if the order is revoked, 
Brazilian manufacturer/exporters of the subject merchandise would be 
likely to continue or to resume selling SSWR at less than fair market 
value in the United States. The domestic interested parties indicate 
that, prior to the initiation of the antidumping duty order (1990-
1992), Brazilian manufacturers/exporters exported, on the average, 4.73 
million pounds of the subject merchandise per annum. The domestic 
interested parties further note that, subsequent to the issuance of the 
order (1994-1996), Brazilian manufacturers/exporters' annual average 
export of SSWR to the United States declined dramatically to 10,692 
pounds per year: a 99.8 percent decline. In addition, during 1996-1998, 
no Brazilian SSWR was exported to the United States. The domestic 
interested parties urge that, based on the aforementioned cessation of 
imports of the subject merchandise, the Department should conclude that 
revocation of the order would be likely to lead to resumption of 
dumping of the subject merchandise in the United States. (See August 2, 
1999, substantive response of the domestic interested parties at 14-
18.)
    In conclusion, the domestic interested parties contend that, since 
Brazilian manufacturers/exporters have not been able to export SSWR to 
the United States with the discipline of the order in place, the 
Department should determine that Brazilian manufacturers/exporters of 
the subject merchandise have to resume dumping if and when they reenter 
the U.S. market. Id.
    According to the data in the Commission's Interactive Tariff and 
Trade Data Website, during 1992, the year prior to the initiation of 
the investigation, the import volume of the subject merchandise was 
about 1,275 metric tons. In the year following the order, 1994, the 
import volume decreased to about 7 metric tons--more than a 99 percent 
decline. Furthermore, from 1995 to 1998, imports of the subject 
merchandise completely stopped. Therefore, we determine that imports of 
the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the order.
    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 if 
the order is to be revoked.
    Furthermore, pursuant to 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 considered whether dumping had 
continued at any level above de minimis 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. In the instant case, the cash deposit 
requirements for the subject merchandise entering the United States 
have been in effect since the imposition of the order.
    In conclusion, inasmuch as imports of the subject merchandise 
ceased after the issuance of the order, the cash deposit rates continue 
to exist, and the respondent interested parties waived their right to 
participate in this review, 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 SSWR 
from Brazil, established both company-specific and all-others weighted-
average dumping margins.\3\ We note that, to date, the Department has 
not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See footnote 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The domestic interested parties contend the Department should 
select the weighted-average margins from the original investigation 
when the Department determines the margins that are likely to prevail 
were the order to be revoked. (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 the margins calculated in 
the original investigation are representative of Brazilian 
manufacturers/exporters' behavior without 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

[[Page 5322]]

continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eletrometal..................................................     24.63
Piratini.....................................................     26.50
Villares.....................................................     26.50
All others...................................................     25.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 00-2421 Filed 2-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P