Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-501]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Certain Welded Carbon

Steel Pipes and Tubes From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of Expedited Sunset Review: Certain

welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the

Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order

on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey (64 FR

23596) 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

substantive comments 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

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 Results of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn B. McCormick 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-

1930 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 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 19 C.F.R. 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

[[Page 67877]]

(April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy Bulletin'').

Scope

The products covered by this order include circular welded non-

alloy steel pipes and tubes, of circular cross-section, with an outside

diameter of 0.372 inches or more, but not more than 16 inches in

outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black,

galvanized, or painted) or end finish (plain end, beveled end,

threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally

known as standard pipe, though they may also be called structural or

mechanical tubing in certain applications. Standard pipes and tubes are

intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water steam, natural gas,

air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-

conditioner units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses.

Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing and mechanical

applications, such as for fence tubing, and for protections of

electrical wiring, such as conduit shells.

The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing or those

types or mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard pipe

applications. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical

description outline above are included in the scope of this order,

except for line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-

drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for

redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. The subject

merchandise was classifiable under items 610.3231, 610.3234, 610.3241,

610.3242, 610.3243, and 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258,

610.4925 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated

(``TSUSA''); currently, it is classifiable under item numbers

7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, and 7306.30.5040,

7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5805 and 7306.30.5090 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''). Although the TSUSA and HTSUS

item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the

written description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

In the original investigation, covering the period February 1,

1985, through July 31, 1986 (51 FR 13044, April 7, 1986), the

Department determined a margin of 1.26 percent for Borusan Ithicat ve

Dagitim (``Borusan''); 23.12 percent for Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru

Industrisi (``Mannesmann'') and Erkboru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret

(``Erkboru''); and 14.17 percent for ``all others.''

There have been six administrative reviews for the subject

antidumping duty order. A summary of these reviews follows:

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

Review Period of Review (``POR'') Citation

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

(1)............ 3 Jan 1986-30 April 1987... 53 FR 39632 (October 11,

1988).

(2)............ 1 May 1987-30 April 1988... 57 FR 54046 (November 16,

1992).

(3)............ 1 May 1988-30 April 1989... 56 FR 23864 (May 24,

1991).

(4)............ 1 May 1993-30 April 1994... 62 FR 51629 (October 2,

1997).

62 FR 62758 (November 25,

1997) Amended.

(5)............ 1 May 1994-30 April 1995... 61 FR 69067 (December 31,

1996).

62 FR 16547 (April 7,

1997) Amended.

62 FR 27013 (May 16, 1997)

Amended.

(6)............ 1 May 1996-30 April 1997... 63 FR 35190 (June 29,

1998).

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

In addition to the companies subject in the original investigation, the

Department has investigated and/or reviewed imports from producers/

exporters Borusan Holding A.S., Borusan Gemlik Boru Tesisleri A.S.,

Borusan Boru Sanayii A.S., Istikbal Ticaret A.S., Borusan Ihracat

Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S., and Tubeco Pipe and Steel Corporation

(collectively, the ``Borusan Group''); Yucelboru Ihracat, Ithalat ve

Pazarlama A.S. (``Yucel Boru''); and Erbosan Erviyas Boru Sanayii ve

Ticaret A.S. (``Erbosan''). To date, the Department has not issued a

duty absorption determination in this case.

Background

On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the

antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes

from Turkey (64 FR 23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The

Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of

Allied Tube and Conduit Corp., Sawhill Tubular Division--Amoco, Inc.,

Century Tube, IPSCO Tubular Inc., LTV Steel Tubular Products, Maverick

Tube Corporation, Sharon Tube Company, Western Tube and Conduit, and

Wheatland Tube Company (collectively ``domestic interested parties'')

on May 18, 1999, within the deadline specified in section

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. The domestic interested

parties claimed interested party status under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) as

U.S. producers of welded carbon steel pipes and tubes. We received a

complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties on

June 2, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset

Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did not receive a

substantive response from any respondent interested party to this

proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the

Department determined to conduct an expedited, 120-day review of this

order.

In accordance with 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). On

September 7, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset review of

the antidumping order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from

Turkey is extraordinarily complicated and, therefore, the Department

extended the time limit for completion of the final results of this

review until not later than November 29, 1999, in accordance with

section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.1

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

\1\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year

Reviews, 64 FR 48579 (September 7, 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 duty order,

and

[[Page 67878]]

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. Additionally, the domestic interested parties' comments 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 consideration of 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.

In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties

argue that revocation of the subject order would result in the

resumption of sales at less-than-fair value by margins equivalent to or

greater than those found in the original investigation (see June 2,

1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested parties at 3). With

respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis

after the issuance of the order, the domestic interested parties assert

only that margins continue to exist and, in some reviews, have

increased since the original investigation. Id. With respect to whether

import volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly, the

domestic interested parties note that 1998 imports amounted to only

7,400 tons (75 million kg), nearly a quarter of 1985 (the year prior to

the subject order) figures. Id.

As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies continue

dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may

reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were

removed. Dumping margins above de minimis have existed throughout the

life of the order, and continue to exist, for shipments of subject

merchandise from some Turkish producers/exporters investigated by the

Department.

Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department

considered the volume of imports before and after the issuance of the

1986 order. The statistics on imports of the subject merchandise cited

by the domestic interested parties and those examined by the Department

(U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports), show that Turkish producers/

exporters continued to export after the order was issued, and peaked at

approximately 42 million kilograms in 1987, and 1994. From 1988 through

1998, imports averaged approximately 15 million kilograms, less than

half of pre-order volumes.

Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of

dumping margins after the issuance of the order is highly probative of

the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Given that

dumping has continued at levels above de minimis after the issuance of

the order, import volumes for subject merchandise significantly

declined, respondent interested parties have waived their right to

participate in this review before the Department, and absent argument

and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is

likely to continue if the order were revoked.

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).

In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties

argue that both the overall decrease in imports from Turkey into the

United States and continuing presence of even higher dumping margins

than those found in the original investigation indicate a strong

likelihood of continuation of dumping should the order be revoked.

Accordingly, the domestic interested parties assert that the Department

should find the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail to

be the margins found for Turkish producers/exporters in the original

investigation (see June 2, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic

interested parties at 3).

The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'

suggestion that the Department should report to the Commission the

margins from the original investigation. These margins are the only

margins that reflect the behavior of exporters absent the discipline of

the order. Absent argument or evidence to the contrary, the Department

sees no reason to change its usual practice of selecting the margins

from the original investigation. We will report to the Commission the

margins contained in the Final Results of Review section of this

notice.

Final Results of Review

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

the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

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

Margin

Producer/exporter (percent)

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

Borusan Ithicat ve Dagitim................................. 1.26

Erkboru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret........................... 23.12

Mannesmann-Summerbank Boru Industrisi...................... 23.12

All others................................................. 14.74

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

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

[[Page 67879]]

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: November 9, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-31421 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P