Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod From Argentina

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-007]

Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod From

Argentina

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel

Wire Rod from Argentina.

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

SUMMARY: On May 28, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full

sunset review of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rod

from Argentina (64 FR 28975) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). We provided interested parties

an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received

comments from both domestic and respondent interested parties. As a

result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of this

order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping

at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this

notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott E. Smith 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-

6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 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 CFR Part 351 (1998)

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-

[[Page 53322]]

year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy

Bulletin'').

Scope

The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is carbon

steel wire rod from Argentina. This merchandise is currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) item numbers 7213.20.00, 7213.31.30, 7213.39.00, 7213.41.30,

7213.49.00, and 7213.50.00. Although the item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains

dispositive.

Background

On May 28, 1999, the Department issued the Preliminary Results of

Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Argentina (64 FR 28975)

(``Preliminary Results''). In our preliminary results, we found that

revocation of the order would likely result in the continuation or

recurrence of dumping. In addition, we preliminarily determined that

the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order

were revoked was 119.11 percent for Acindar Industria Argentina de

Aceros S.A. (``Acindar'') and all others.

On July 12, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR

351.209(c)(1)(i), we received comments on behalf of Co-Steel (formerly

Raritan River Steel), GS Industries, and North Star Steel Company

(collectively, the ``domestic interested parties''), the domestic

participants in this review, and on behalf of Acindar, the respondent

in this review. On July 15, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19

CFR 351.309(d), the Department received rebuttal comments from the

domestic interested parties. We have addressed the comment received

below.

Comment

Comment 1: Acindar, in its July 12, 1999, case brief, states that

they disagree with the Department's Preliminary Results in this sunset

proceeding. Acindar argues that the 119.11 percent dumping margin to be

reported to the Commission by the Department is not representative of

the rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Acindar asserts

that in a situation where the rate determined in the original

investigation is not a rate based on a respondent's own data, as exists

in this case, that rate should not be reported by Department.

Furthermore, Acindar argues that the only administrative review

conducted by the Department in which Acindar's own data was used

resulted in a dumping margin of zero.

In addition, Acindar argues that this fifteen year old rate does

not reflect the significant changes which have taken place in the

industry and market for subject merchandise since the imposition of the

order. According to Acindar, the intervention of numerous events--

Mercosur, NAFTA, the changes in the Argentine currency, and the

substantial changes in the wire rod industry in the United States and

worldwide--all greatly weaken any inference that the rate of dumping

``likely to recur'' is the rate hypothesized for Acindar in the early

1980's.

The domestic interested parties, in their July 12, 1999, case

brief, stated that they agree with the Department's Preliminary Results

in this proceeding. With respect to Acindar's assertion, the domestic

interested parties, citing the SAA in their July 15, 1999, rebuttal

brief, state that the dumping margin from the original investigation is

the only rate that properly reflects the behavior of exporters prior to

the issuance of the antidumping duty order. According to the domestic

interested parties, Acindar's request that the Department select

another rate to report to the Commission is in direct contradiction to

the SAA. They argue that the rate from the original investigation is

the most appropriate to report to the Commission. Lastly, the domestic

interested parties argue that the age of margin the Department reports

to the Commission is irrelevant and that the rate from the original

investigation, regardless of how long ago the order was created, is

most probative of the rate likely to prevail because it is the only

rate which reflects the behavior of producers and/or exporters absent

the discipline of the order.

Department Position: The Department agrees with the domestic

interested parties. The Department's Sunset Regulations state that we

will normally provide the company-specific margin from the

investigation for each company regardless of whether the margin was

calculated using a company's own information or based on best

information available or facts available. As stated in our Preliminary

Results, the rate assigned to Acindar in the original investigation is

the only one which reflects its behavior absent the discipline of the

order and therefore is the most appropriate to report to the Commission

as the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. The

Department finds no reason to deviate from its stated policy in this

proceeding.

As for the zero dumping margin attained by Acindar in the sole

administrative review of this order, the Department does not find this

rate probative of the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be

revoked. In its Preliminary Results, the Department noted that the

establishment of this zero dumping margin was preceded by a significant

reduction in import volumes of the subject merchandise. Furthermore,

throughout the life of the order, import volumes have remained

substantially below their pre-imposition of the order levels. This

strongly suggests to the Department that Acindar had to dramatically

reduce its exports of subject merchandise to the United States in order

to eliminate dumping and would be unable to sell significant quantities

(e.g. pre-imposition quantities) of subject merchandise in the United

States and maintain a dumping margin of zero. Furthermore, the

Department notes that a zero or de minimis dumping margin, in itself,

does not require the Department to determine that continuation or

recurrence of dumping is not likely nor does it indicate to the

Department that a zero or de minimis margin is the margin likely to

prevail if the order were to be revoked. See section 772(c)(4)(A) of

the Act.

Final Results of 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 for the reasons set forth in our preliminary

results of review. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in our

preliminary results of review and as discussed above, we find that the

margins calculated in the original investigation are probative of the

behavior of Argentine producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.

As such, the Department will report to the Commission the company-

specific and all others rates from the original investigation listed

below:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Acindar...................................................... 119.11

All Others................................................... 119.11

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

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

[[Page 53323]]

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: September 27, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-25626 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P