Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing From Taiwan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-803]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Light-Walled Welded

Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing From Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

[[Page 67872]]

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited Sunset Review: Light-

walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Taiwan.

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

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

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

on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Taiwan (54

FR 22794) 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 the 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 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

The merchandise subject to this antidumping duty order is Taiwanese

light-walled welded carbon steel tubing of rectangular (including

square) cross-section, having a wall thickness of not less than 0.065

inches, and 0.375 inches or more but not over 4.5 inches in outside

diameter. The subject merchandise is classifiable under item number

7306.60.50.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(``HTSUS''). Although the HTSUS item number is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

History of the Order

In the original investigation, covering the period January 1, 1988,

through June 30, 1988, the Department determined the following margins

for U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Taiwan: 1

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

\1\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value;

Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Taiwan, 54

FR 5532 (February 3, 1989).

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

Margin

Producer/exporter (percent)

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

Ornatube Enterprise (``Ornatube'')......................... 5.51

Vulcan Industrial Corp..................................... 40.97

Yieh Hsing Industries, Ltd................................. 40.97

All Others................................................. 29.15

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

Since the issuance of the order in 1989, the Department has conducted

two administrative reviews. In the first review, covering the period

November 21, 1988, through February 28, 1990, the Department determined

a margin of 0.1975 percent for Ornatube. In the second review, covering

the period March 1, 1990, through February 28, 1991, the margin for

Ornatube was 18.05 percent. 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 light-walled welded carbon steel tubing from

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

Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of

California Steel and Tube, Hannibal Industries Inc., Maruichi American

Corporation, Searing Industries, Leavitt Tube, Vest Inc., and Western

Tube and Conduit (collectively ``domestic interested parties''), within

the applicable deadline (May 18, 1999) 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 a domestic like product. We received a

complete substantive response from the domestic interested parties on

June 2, 1998, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset

Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). Many of the domestic

interested parties are members of the Committee on Pipe and Tube

Imports, the trade association on whose behalf the original petition

was filed. 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 light-walled welded rectangular

carbon steel tubing from Taiwan 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 determination 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,

[[Page 67873]]

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 have the effect of

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

greater than those found in the original investigation and subsequent

reviews (see June 2, 1999, Substantive Response of domestic interested

parties at 3).

With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased

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

that, since the issuance of the order, imports of subject tubing from

Taiwan to the United States have almost disappeared entirely. Id. For

instance, they contend, whereas in 1988 (the year before the

antidumping duty order was issued), there were nearly 16,000 tons of

U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Taiwan, in 1998, there were

less than 100 tons of subject imports from Taiwan. Id. Thus, the

domestic interested parties argue that continuing margins and the

nearly total cessation of U.S. imports of the subject merchandise from

Taiwan indicate a strong likelihood of continuation of dumping should

the Department revoke this order. Id.

The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'

argument that continuing margins and the nearly total cessation of U.S.

imports from Taiwan indicate a strong likelihood that Taiwanese

importers/producers will continue to export at less than fair value in

the absence of the order. We found that, according to U.S. Census

Bureau IM149 reports, imports declined significantly during the period

following the order and margins continue to exist at levels above de

minimis. If imports cease or decline significantly, it is reasonable to

assume that exporters could not sell in the United States without

dumping and that, to reenter the U.S. market, they would have to resume

dumping.3 Further, if dumping continues after the issuance

of an order, it is reasonable to determined that dumping would continue

were the order revoked.

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

\3\ Department of Commerce Policy Bulletin, Policies Regarding

the Conduct of Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Orders, quoting the Uruguay Round Agreements

Act, Statement of Administrative Action (citation omitted), 63 FR

18871, 18872 (April 16, 1998).

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

Given that dumping has continued at levels above de minimis after

the issuance of the order, import volumes for subject merchandise

declined significantly, 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 were the order revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department states 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

assert that, because imports of subject merchandise from Taiwan into

the United States declined significantly after the issuance of the

order, the Department should report to Commission the margin from the

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

domestic interested parties at 3).

The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'

argument concerning the margins to report to the Commission. The

margins from the original investigation are the only rates that reflect

the behavior of Taiwanese producers/exporters without the discipline of

the order and, therefore, are probative of the behavior of producers/

exporters of subject merchandise from Taiwan if the order were revoked.

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)

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

Ornatube Enterprise (``Ornatube'')......................... 5.51

Vulcan Industrial Corp..................................... 40.97

Yieh Hsing Industries, Ltd................................. 40.97

All Others................................................. 29.15

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

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: November 27, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-31424 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P