Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping Duty Orders and Findings Nor to Terminate Suspended Investigations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping Duty Orders and Findings

Nor to Terminate Suspended Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping Duty Orders and

Findings Nor to Terminate Suspended Investigations.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is notifying the public of its

determination not to revoke the antidumping duty order listed below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Panfeld or the analyst listed

[[Page 53910]]

under Antidumping Proceeding at: Office of Antidumping Compliance,

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone (202) 482-4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Commerce (the Department)

may revoke an antidumping duty order or finding or terminate a

suspended investigation, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.25(d)(4)(iii),

if no interested party has requested an administrative review for four

consecutive annual anniversary months and no domestic interested party

objects to the revocation or requests an administrative review.

The anniversary month for the Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube (P & T) from Taiwan antidumping duty order is May. With

regard to P & T from Taiwan, the Department published its notice of

intent to revoke the order on May 3, 1994. However, due to a

ministerial oversight, the Department failed to notify the domestic

interested parties of its action. On June 20, 1994, the Department sent

a letter to the domestic interested parties notifying them of our

previous action and informing them that any objections to the

Department's intent to revoke the order on P & T from Taiwan must be

made within 30 days. Domestic interested parties filed an objection on

July 11, 1994.

On September 19, 1994, Kao Hsing Chang Iron & Steel Corporation

(KHC), a respondent, requested that the Department revoke the order

because no interested party had objected by the last day of May 1994.

KHC, citing the Court of International Trade's (CIT) ruling in Kemira

Fibres Oy v. United States, 861 F. Supp. 144 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994),

argued that the objection of July 11, 1994, ``was invalid because the

objection ensued in response to an invitation erroneously extended as

the time to issue the notice had expired and Commerce was obligated to

revoke the order.'' The CIT held that, pursuant to 19 C.F.R.

Sec. 353.25(d)(4)(iii), if no interested party objects to the

Department's notice of intent to revoke by the last day of the fifth

anniversary month of the order, then the Department must revoke the

order, regardless of the time limit for objections specified by the

Department in its notice of intent to revoke.

On August 2, 1995, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(CAFC) overturned the CIT 's ruling in Kemira Fibres Oy v. United

States, Slip Op. 95-1077 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 1995). Among other things,

the CAFC held that notice is of paramount importance in the ``sunset''

process:

* * * there may be cases when administrative review is not

warranted because interested parties are satisfied with an existing

order. . . . In such a case, the domestic industry may have no

incentive to request administrative review of the order. Thus, the

absence of a request for administrative review, while it may

indicate lack of interest, can also indicate satisfaction with the

status quo. Consequently, Commerce may not reasonably conclude that

there is a lack of interest in an outstanding order merely by the

absence of a request for review, rather, only after publishing

notice of proposed revocation may Commerce properly conclude that

the order at issue is no longer of interest so as to be revocable.

It is clear that notification of domestic parties so that their

interest in revocation of an outstanding order may be ascertained

and addressed is an overriding consideration in the regulatory

framework and the legislative history of the antidumping statute.

Given this, we conclude that Commerce's interpretation was a

reasonable one. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. Revocation must be

predicated on a lack of industry interest and such interest must be

ascertained through notification of an intent to revoke. The timing

requirements of section 353.25(d)(4)(i)-(ii) are merely procedural

aids in accomplishing this prerequisite to revocation. They are

subordinate to the overriding requirement of notice. A contrary

interpretation would defeat the clear intent of Congress.

Within the time frame specified in our notice to interested parties

of June 20, 1994, we received objections from the ``domestic interested

parties'' to our intent to revoke this antidumping duty order.

Therefore, in accordance with the CAFC's decision, because the

``domestic interested parties'' timely objected to our intent to

revoke, we no longer intend to revoke this antidumping duty order.

Furthermore, in light of the CAFC's decision, the alternative arguments

raised by the parties are moot.

Antidumping Proceeding

A-583-008

Taiwan

Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe & Tubes

Objection Date: July 11, 1994

Objector: Wheatland Tube Corporation

Contact: Michael Heaney at (202) 482-4475

Dated: October 11, 1995.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95-25860 Filed 10-17-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P