Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-809, A-580-809, A-201-805, A-583-814, A-307-805]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico,

Taiwan, and Venezuela

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Certain

circular-welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, the Republic of

Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela.

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

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

Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders

on certain circular-welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, the

Republic of Korea (``Korea''), Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela 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 an adequate

response filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and inadequate

responses from respondent interested parties in each of these reviews,

the Department conducted expedited sunset reviews. As a result of these

reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty

orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at

the levels indicated in the Final Result of Reviews section of this

notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha V. Douthit 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, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5050

or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 1999.

Statute and Regulations

These reviews were 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

[[Page 67855]]

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 these antidumping duty orders is

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Brazil, Korea,

Mexico, and Venezuela. The product consists of circular cross-section,

not more than 406.4mm (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 pipes and tubes

and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam,

natural gas, air and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating

systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing

applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing

used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-

bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm

equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is

also included in this order. All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within

the physical description outlined above are included within the scope

of this investigation, except line pipe, oil country tubular goods,

boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws,

finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. Standard pipe that is dual

or triple certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as line pipe of a

kind used for oil and gas pipelines is also not included in this

investigation. Imports of the products covered by this order are

currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, 7306.30.50.90. Although

the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of these proceedings is

dispositive.

Scope Clarification: Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela

On March 21, 1996, in a final scope ruling, the Department

determined that: (i) Pipe certified to the API 5L line pipe

specification, and (ii) pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe

specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard pipe

specifications which fall within the physical parameters outlined in

the scope of the orders and enter as line pipe of a kind used for oil

and gas pipelines are outside the scope of the antidumping duty orders

on certain welded carbon steel non-alloy pipe from Brazil, Korea,

Mexico and Venezuela, irrespective of end use.1 Mexico--On

December 31, 1995, Tubacero International Corporation requested

clarification to determine whether circular welded carbon steel piping,

16 inches in outside diameter with \3/8\ inch wall thickness, for use

in extremely heavy load bearing applications, is within the scope of

the order. On April 25, 1996, the Department determined that circular

welded carbon steel piping, 16 inches in outside diameter with \3/8\

inch wall thickness, for use in extremely heavy load bearing

applications, is within the scope of the order (see Notice of Scope

Rulings, 61 FR 18381 (April 25, 1996)).

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

\1\ Final Negative Scope Determination of Scope Inquiry on

Certain Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the

Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela, 61 FR 11608 (March 21,

1996).

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

Mexico--Pending Scope Clarification

Cierra Pipe, Incorporated submitted a request for a scope

clarification of the subject merchandise to determine whether line pipe

``shorts'', or ``old line pipe'' which has rushed and pitted after

sitting in storage, constitute line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas

pipelines or is pipe and tubed covered by the order (see 63 FR 59544

(November 4, 1998).

Mexico--Pending Anti-Circumvention Inquiry

The domestic interested parties requested a circumvention inquiry

to determine whether imports of: (i) Pipe certified to the American

Petroleum Institute (API) 5L line pipe specifications (API) 5L, and

(ii) pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe specifications and the

less stringent American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') A-

53 standard pipe specifications (dual certified pipe), falling within

the physical dimensions outlined in the scope of the order, are

circumventing the antidumping duty order (see 63 FR 41545 (August 4,

1998)).

History of the Orders

On September 17, 1992, the Department issued final determinations

of sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') on imports of certain

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico,

Taiwan, and Venezuela (57 FR 42940, 42942, 42953, 42961, and 42962,

respectively). On November 2, 1992, the Department published the Notice

of Antidumping Orders on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela, and

Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 57 FR

49453 (November 2, 1992). The order on Korea was subsequently amended

(see Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Determination, 60

FR 55833 (November 3, 1995)).

In the investigations, the Department estimated weighted-average

dumping margins that ranged from 4.91 percent to 103.38 percent ad

valorem. There have been no administrative reviews of the orders on

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Taiwan, and

Venezuela. The Department conducted two administrative reviews of the

order covering Korea and two administrative reviews of the order

covering from Mexico.2 The Department has not found duty

absorption for any country subject to these antidumping duty orders.

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

\2\ See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Circular Welded

Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574

(October 27, 1997), Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of

Korea, 63 FR 32833 (June 16, 1998), as amended, 63 FR 39071 (July

21, 1998), Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico, 62 FR

37014 (July 10, 1997), and Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube

from Mexico, 63 FR 33041 (June 17, 1998), as amended, 63 FR 38370

(July 16, 1998).

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

The antidumping duty orders remain in effect for all producers and

exporters of the subject merchandise from Brazil, Korea, Mexico,

Taiwan, and Venezuela.

Background

On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela pursuant to section

751(c) of the Act. On May 18, 1999, within the deadline specified in

section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulation, we received notices

of intent to participate from Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation,

Sawhill Tubular Division--Armco, Inc., Century Tube, IPSCO Tubular

Inc., LTV Steel Tubular Products, Maverick Tube Corporation, Sharon

Tube Company, Western Tube and Conduit, and Wheatland Tube Co.

(collectively ``the

[[Page 67856]]

domestic interested parties''). Each of these parties claimed status as

domestic interested parties on the basis that they are domestic

producers of the products subject to these orders. In its substantive

responses, the domestic interested parties assert that all parties

except IPSCO, LTV Tubular, and Maverick participated in the original

investigation and subsequent administrative reviews of the subject

orders. With respect to related party status, the domestic interested

parties state that they are not related to any foreign producers or

foreign exporters, and are not importers of the subject merchandise, or

related to importers of the subject merchandise.

Within the deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under

section 351.218(d)(3)(i), on June 2, 1999, the Department received

complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties. In

addition, we received a complete substantive response from, Tuberia

Nacional, S.A. de C.V. (``TUNA'') a Mexican producer/exporter of

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe in the sunset review of the order

on Mexico. TUNA stated it was not a participant in the original

investigation, however, it participated in the 1994-1995 administrative

review, and the 1997-1998 administrative review currently being

conducted by the Department. On June 2, 1999, the Korea Iron and Steel

Association (``KOSA'') and its individual members SeAH Steel

Corporation, Ltd., Sinho Steel Company, Hyundai Pipe Company, and Korea

Iron and Steel Company, waived their right to participate in the

Department's sunset review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from

Korea. On June 2, 1999, C.A. Conduven (``Conduven'') waived its right

to participate in the Department's sunset review of circular welded

non-alloy steel pipe from Venezuela.

On June 22, 1999, we informed the International Trade Commission

(``Commission'') that on the basis of inadequate responses from

respondent interested parties, we were conducting expedited sunset

reviews of these orders consistent with 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).

(See Letter to Lynn Featherstone, Director, Office of Investigations

from Jeffrey A. May, Director, Office of Policy.)

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). Therefore, on September 7, 1999, the Department determined that

the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on circular-welded

non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela

are extraordinarily complicated and extended the time limit for

completion of the final results of these reviews until not later than

November 29, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the

Act.3

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

\3\ 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 these reviews to determine whether revocation of the

antidumping duty orders 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 import volume of the subject merchandise for the period

before the issuance of the antidumping duty orders and the period after

the issuance of the antidumping duty orders. Pursuant to section

752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department shall provide to the Commission

the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders are

revoked.

The Department's determinations concerning continuation or

recurrence of dumping, and magnitude of the margin are discussed below.

In addition, the parties' comments with respect to the continuation or

recurrence of dumping, and the magnitude of the margin are addressed in

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 basis for

likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the

Department indicates 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 reviews, the

Department either did not receive a response, or did receive a waiver,

from producers and exporters of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from Brazil, Korea, Taiwan, and Venezuela. Pursuant to section

351.218(d)(2)(iii) or section 351.218(d)(2)(i), as applicable, of the

Sunset Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of participation.

In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties

assert that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on the subject

merchandise from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela, would be

likely to lead to continuation of dumping at margins equivalent to or

greater than the margins above found in the original investigations.

The domestic interested parties support their argument by stating that

after the issuance of the antidumping duty orders, dumping margins

above de minimis levels continued to exist. In addition, import volumes

declined significantly, and in some instances, no shipments were

reported. The domestic interested parties provided the Department the

following import statistics:

Brazil--In 1991 (the year prior to the imposition of the

antidumping duty order), shipment of Brazilian circular-welded non-

alloy steel pipe to the United States totaled 54,000 tons. After the

issuance of the order imports declined dramatically. By 1998, no

imports were reported.

Korea--Imports declined from 321,000 in 1991, to 174,000 in 1998.

Mexico--Imports declined from 48,000 tons in 1991, to 13,500 tons

in 1998.

Taiwan--Imports were over 38,000 tons in 1991, and in 1998, almost

ceased as the volume declined dramatically to 60 tons.

Venezuela--Imports accounted for over 16,000 tons in 1991. In 1998,

imports dropped significantly to 3,300 tons, down nearly 80 percent

compared to 1991 import volume.

[[Page 67857]]

The domestic interested parties, citing to the Department's Sunset

Policy Bulletin, state that existence of dumping margins after the

order, or the cessation of imports after the order, is highly probative

of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. Therefore,

they argue that the continued existence of dumping margins coupled with

the significant decrease in imports, strongly indicates the likelihood

of continuation or recurrence of dumping should the antidumping duty

orders be revoked.

In its substantive response, TUNA, the only respondent in the

sunset review of the antidumping duty order of circular welded non-

alloy steel pipe from Mexico, argues that revocation of the antidumping

duty order would not result in continuation or recurrence of dumping.

TUNA basis its assertion on the decline of dumping margins and increase

in import volumes. TUNA argues that the Department, in the original

investigation, assigned Hylsa S.A. de C.V (``Hylsa'') (the only

respondent reviewed in the investigation) a 32.62 percent dumping

margin, and established an ``all others'' duty deposit rate of 32.62

percent.4 After the investigation, Hylsa's rate of 32.62

percent declined to a single digit level. Although TUNA was not a

participant in the original investigation, in the 1994-1995

administrative review, the Department assigned TUNA a 1.77 percent

dumping margin. TUNA argues that 1.77 percent (its current duty deposit

rate) is considered de minimis under the World Trade Organization

(``WTO'') Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``Antidumping Agreement'').

Therefore TUNA argues that the order should be revoked (see TUNA's

Substantive Response at 4). In addition, TUNA argues that import volume

and value of the subject merchandise from Mexico has increased

significantly in recent years. From 1993, the year after the imposition

of the order, to 1998, imports from Mexico more than tripled, from

approximately $2.5 million to approximately $7.8 million in 1998 (see

TUNA's Substantive Response at 10). In Attachment 3 and Attachment 5 of

its substantive response, TUNA provides its volume and value of exports

to the U.S., and its estimate of the percentage of exports to the U.S.

TUNA concludes that Mexican producers and exporters of the subject

merchandise can ship to the U.S. without dumping should the antidumping

duty order be revoked because dumping margins declined after the

issuance of the order and imports increased or remained steady.

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

\4\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Mexico, 57 FR 42953

(September 17, 1992).

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

Finally, TUNA argues that good cause exists to consider other

factors. TUNA argues that because the URAA presumes revocation unless

there is evidence that dumping will continue, a reasoned decision will

often require consideration of factors other than the dumping margin.

TUNA argues that in most cases it will be impossible for the Department

to render a reasoned determination without considering all relevant

information.

TUNA argues that in this case, the original dumping margin was

determined when domestic demand was at or near the bottom of a business

cycle of several years' duration. Since that time, demand has increased

steadily and is expected to continue to increase. TUNA notes that in

1996, the ITC issued a negative injury determination regarding imports

of circular welded non-alloy pipe from Romania and South Africa. TUNA

asserts that the domestic industry has clearly benefitted from

increases in construction activity and that the strong domestic demand

has enabled TUNA to achieve increasing volumes of exports. In this

situation, TUNA asserts that dumping is unlikely to continue or recur.

Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and

the House Report at 63-64 provide that the existence of dumping margins

after the order, or cessation of imports after the order, is highly

probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.

If companies continue to dump with the discipline of an order in place,

it is reasonable to assume that dumping would continue if the

discipline were removed. Further, as noted above, in determining

whether revocation of an order is likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping, the Department considers the margins determined

in the investigation and subsequent administrative reviews and volume

of imports.

With respect to dumping margins in the antidumping duty orders on

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico,

Taiwan, and Venezuela, we agree with the domestic interested parties

that margins above de minimis levels continued to exist. We disagree

with TUNA's assertion that its margin of 1.77 percent should be

considered de minimis for purposes of this sunset review. Both the

statue and regulation clearly provide that in reviews of orders, the

Department will threat as de minimis any weighted average dumping

margin that is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem (section 752 (c)(4)(B)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.106 (C)(1)). The 2.0 percent de minimis level

in Article 5.8 of the Antidumping Agreement applies only to

investigations, not reviews (see SAA at 844-45).

With respect to import volumes of the subject merchandise, our

analysis of import statistics covering total imports and company-

specific imports demonstrate that import volumes and values have

fluctuated over the life of these orders and have not reached pre-order

volumes for any of the subject countries. Although TUNA's imports

increased after the issuance of the order, its reported post-order

import volumes were nonetheless insignificant compared to its pre-order

volumes. Therefore, given that dumping margins above de minimis levels

were found to exist and continue in effect with respect to each of

these orders, and respondent interested parties waived their right to

participate in these (other than Mexico) reviews before the Department,

the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue or recur

if the orders were revoked.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,

consistent with the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will

provide to the Commission a margin from the investigation because that

is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior or exporters

without the discipline of an order in place. Further, for companies not

specifically investigated or for companies that did not begin shipping

until after the order was issued, we 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 its substantive responses, the domestic interested parties argue

that the Department should report to the Commission the dumping margins

determined in the original investigations because these rates best

reflect the behavior of producers and exporters of circular welded non-

alloy steel pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Venezuela

absent the antidumping duty orders.

With respect to the Mexican case, TUNA reasserts that the dumping

margins that are likely to prevail were the order revoked are de

minimis. Additionally, citing to the SAA (at 890-

[[Page 67858]]

891), TUNA notes that in certain instances, it may be more appropriate

to provide the Commission a more recently calculated margin. TUNA

argues that it is not appropriate to report the margins from the

original investigation where, as in this case, dumping margins

decreased and import volume remained steady or increased. TUNA argues

that the weighted-average dumping margins for Hylsa (the only

respondent in the investigation), declined to single digit levels, from

32.62 percent in the investigation to 2.99 percent in 1994-1995, and to

7.39 percent in 1995-1996. Further, TUNA notes that it was subject to

the all others rate until the 1994-1995 administrative review, when the

Department assigned TUNA a 1.77 percent dumping margin (its only

individual margin) (see 62 FR 37014, July 10, 1997)).

In addition, TUNA argues that dumping margins assigned in the

original investigation are inappropriate as indicators of the rates

that would be found upon revocation in light of changes in the

methodology used to calculate antidumping duty margins introduced by

the Uruguay Round. TUNA asserts that the use of margins that would not

be obtained under current law would be unfair and contrary to the

Antidumping Agreement.

With respect to duty absorption, TUNA notes although the Department

has not made any duty absorption findings, in the 1997-1998

administrative review, the petitioners requested a duty absorption

investigation.

As discussed above, we disagree with TUNA's assertion that a

dumping margin of 1.77 percent is de minimis. Further, we note that the

current deposit rates for Hylsa (7.39 percent) and all others Mexican

producers/exporters (32.63 percent) are not de minimis.

With respect to TUNA's argument concerning the magnitude of the

margin likely to prevail, we disagree. In the Sunset Policy Bulletin we

indicated that, consistent with the SAA at 889-90 and the House Report

at 63, we may determine, in cases where declining (or no) dumping

margins are accompanied by steady or increasing imports, that a more

recently calculated rate reflects that companies do not have to dump to

maintain market share in the United States and, therefore, that dumping

is less likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked. Further,

we noted that, in determining whether a more recently calculated margin

is probative of an exporters's behavior absent the discipline of an

order, we will normally consider the company's relative market share,

with such information to be provided by the parties. It is clear,

therefore, that in determining whether a more recently calculated

margin is probative of the behavior of exporters were the order to be

revoked, the Department considers company-specific exports and company-

specific margins. In its substantive response, TUNA provided the volume

and value of its exports to the United States for 1990 (the year prior

to the issuance of the order) and for years 1994 through 1998.

Additionally, for the years 1994 through 1998, TUNA reported its

exports as a percentage of total consumption imports of subject

merchandise from Mexico. This information shows the post-order exports

from TUNA continue to be significantly below TUNA's pre-order exports.

Additionally, although as TUNA argues, its exports in 1998 are greater

than its exports in 1994, TUNA's exports over this five-year period

have greatly fluctuated. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the use

of a more recently calculated rate is appropriate in this case.

Additionally, we find there is no basis to reject margins calculated in

an investigation because of subsequent changes in methodology. Such

changes do not invalidate margins calculated under prior methodology.

The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties

concerning the margins likely to prevail if these orders were revoked.

Absent argument and evidence to the contrary, and consistent with the

Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine that the margins calculated in the

Department's original investigation are probative of the behavior of

Brazilian, Korean, Taiwanese, and Venezuelan producers and exporters of

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe without the discipline of the

orders in place. Further, based on the above analysis, we find that the

margins calculated in the original investigation covering Mexico are

probative of the behavior of Mexican producers and exporters of

circular welded non-ally steel pipe without the discipline of the

order. Therefore, we will report to the Commission the margins

indicated in the Final Results of the Reviews section of this notice.

Final Results of Reviews

As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation

of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

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

Margin

Manufacturers/exporters (percent)

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

Brazil

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

Persico Pizzamiglio S.A.................................... 103.38

All Others................................................. 103.38

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

Korea

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

Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd................................ 4.62

Korea Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.................................. 4.08

Masan Steel Tube Works Co., Ltd 11.63

Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd 5.35

All Others................................................. 4.80

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

Mexico

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

Hylsa, S.A. de C.V 32.62

All Others................................................. 32.62

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

Taiwan

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

Kao Hsing Chang Iron & Steel Corporation................... 19.46

Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd............................. 27.65

All Others................................................. 23.56

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

Venezuela

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

C.A. Conduven.............................................. 52.51

All Others................................................. 52.51

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

These notices 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 regulation.

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 sanctionable

violation.

These five-year (``sunset'') reviews and notice are published 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. 99-31428 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P