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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-502]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Certain Welded Carbon

Steel Pipes and Tubes From India

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 India.

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

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 India (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-

1698 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 (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, 610.3252, 610.3254, 610.3256, 610.3258, and

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, 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 final determination of the original investigation, covering

the period February 1, 1985, through July 31, 1985 (51 FR 9089, March

17, 1986), the Department determined a margin of 7.08 percent for Tata

Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (``TISCO''), and ``all others.'' 1

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

\1\ Two of the three companies investigated, Zenith Steel Pipes

and Industries Ltd. and Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., were excluded from

the final affirmative determination, since the Department found no

sales at less than fair value.

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

There have been six administrative reviews for the subject

antidumping duty order. A summary of these reviews follows:

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

Period of Review (``POR'') Citation

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

1 May 1987--30 April 1988.............. 56 FR 64753 (December 12, 1991)

1 May 1988--30 April 1989.............. 56 FR 64753 (December 12, 1991)

1 May 1990--30 April 1991.............. 57 FR 54360 (November 18, 1992)

1 May 1995--30 April 1996.............. 62 FR 47632 (September 10,

1997)

62 FR 63070 (November 26, 1997)

Amended

1 May 1996--30 April 1997.............. 63 FR 32825 (June 16, 1998)

63 FR 39269 (July 22, 1998)

Amended

63 FR 66120 (December 1, 1998)

Amended

1 May 1997--30 April 1998.............. 64 FR 23821 (May 4, 1999)

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

[[Page 67880]]

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

Department has investigated and/or reviewed imports from producers/

exporters Jindal Pipes Ltd. (``Jindal''), Rajinder Pipes Ltd.

(``Rajinder'') and Rajinder Steel Ltd. (collectively ``RSL''), and

Lloyd's Metals & Engineers (``Lloyds'').

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 welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from

India (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, 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 section 771(9)(C) of the

Act as U.S. producers of certain 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 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). On September 7, 1999, the Department determined that the sunset

review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel

pipes and tubes from India is extraordinarily complicated and 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.2

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

\2\ 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 duty 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 it 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 duty 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.

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

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 that

margins have increased since the original investigation. For example,

domestic interested parties note the dumping margins for two

investigated companies, Tisco and Rajinder, increased to 87.39 percent.

Id.

With respect to import volumes, the domestic interested parties

assert that import volumes for the subject merchandise declined

significantly, noting that 1998 imports amounted to 12,000 tons, or

nearly a 50-percent drop from the 22,000 tons imported in 1985 (the

year prior to the subject order). Id. In their substantive response,

the domestic interested parties argue that both the overall decrease in

imports from India 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 terminated.

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 all Indian producers/exporters investigated other than

those excluded from this order.

Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, we considered the volume

of imports before and after the issuance of the order in 1986. The

statistics on imports of the subject merchandise cited by the domestic

interested parties and those we examined show that Indian producers/

exporters continued to export after the order was issued, although not

[[Page 67881]]

at pre-order levels. According to U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, in

1985, the year prior to the order, approximately 20 million kilograms

of subject merchandise were imported into the United States. Although

imports peaked in 1988, average imports declined to approximately 7.5

million kilograms over the next ten years, which is almost 50 percent

of pre-order levels.

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, average imports of subject merchandise declined after the

issuance of the order, 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,

based on their argument that dumping is likely to continue should the

order be terminated, urge the Department to find that the magnitudes of

the margins likely to prevail are identical to the margins found for

Indian producers/exporters in the original investigation (see June 2,

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

We agreed with the domestic interested parties' assertion that we

should report to the Commission the margins from the original

investigation. These margins reflect the behavior of exporters without

the discipline of the order in place. Absent argument, or evidence to

the contrary, we see no reason to change our usual practice. Therefore,

the Department, consistent with the SAA at 890 and the House Report at

64, will report to the Commission the margins from the original

investigation as contained in this 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 margin listed below:

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

Margin

Producer/exporter (percent)

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

Tata Iron and Steel Company, Ltd........................... 7.08

All others................................................. 7.08

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

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 C.F.R. 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 29, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-31423 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P