Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Singapore

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-559-502]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Light-Walled

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Singapore

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

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

walled rectangular pipe and tube from Singapore.

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

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

``Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping order on

light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Singapore (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

adequate substantive response 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 sunset 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 Result of Review section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun W. Cho 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 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-year (``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

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

Bulletin'').

Scope

The subject merchandise under consideration is light-walled

rectangular pipes and tubes (``rectangular pipes'') from Singapore,

which are mechanical pipes and tubes or welded carbon steel pipes and

tubes of rectangular (including square) cross-section, having a wall

thickness of less than 0.156 inch.

Light-walled rectangular pipes and tubes are currently classifiable

under item number 7306.60.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS item number is provided for

convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description

of the scope of this order remains dispositive.

History of the Order

The antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipes and

tubes from Singapore was published in the Federal Register on November

13, 1986 (51 FR 41142). In that order, the Department determined that

the weighted-average dumping margins for Steel Tubes of Singapore, Ltd.

(``PTE'') as well as for all others are 12.03 percent. The Department

has not conducted any administrative review since that time. We note

that the Department has not conducted any investigation with respect to

duty absorption regarding the exports of the subject merchandise. The

order remains in effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the

subject merchandise.

Background

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

antidumping duty order on rectangular pipes from Singapore (64 FR

23596) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received,

on May 18, 1999, a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of members

of The Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports (``CPTI'') 1

within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. In its Notice of Intent to Participate, the CPTI notes

that none of its members is related to foreign producers and exporters,

nor are any of its members an importer of the subject merchandise

within the meaning of 771(9)(B) of the Act. The members of the CPTI

claimed interest party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as

producers and manufacturers of the domestic like product.

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

\1\ The CPTI is a trade association on whose behalf the original

petition was filed. The members, who are participating in the

instant review, are California Steel and Tube, Hannibal Industries

Inc. Maruichi American Corporation, Searing Industries, Leavitt

Tube, Vest Inc., and Western Tube and Conduit.

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

We received a complete substantive response from the CPTI on June

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

under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). In its substantive response, the CPTI

noted that it participated in the original investigation. (See June 2,

1999, Substantive Response of the CPTI at 2.) We did not receive a

substantive response from any respondent interested parties to this

proceeding. Consequently, pursuant to section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of

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

the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty order on rectangular pipes

from Singapore is 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.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 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 order, and

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. In addition, the CPTI's comments with respect to continuation or

recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are

[[Page 67869]]

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 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 its substantive response, the CPTI argues that revocation of the

antidumping order will result in resumption of sales of the subject

merchandise 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 the CPTI at 2 & 3.) While arguing that a

cessation of imports after the issuance of an antidumping order is

highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

dumping, the CPTI provided data which indicate that imports of the

subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the antidumping duty

order.3 Based on the aforementioned data, the CPTI asserts

that imports of the subject merchandise have ceased since the issuance

of the antidumping duty order, and therefore the Department should find

that dumping is likely to recur or continue should the order be

revoked. Id.

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

\3\ The CPTI compares the import volumes of the subject

merchandise prior to the order, 2700 tons in 1985 to zero in 1998.

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

According to U.S. International Trade Commission Trade Data, which

integrates tariff and trade data from the Department, the U.S.

Treasury, and the U.S. International Trade Commission, soon after the

issuance of the antidumping order, the volume of imports of the subject

merchandise fell drastically--the average volume of imports of the

subject merchandise between 1989 and 1991 is 37 metric tons. This is

less than 1.5 percent of 1985 pre-order volume of over 2700 metric

ton.4 Furthermore, the volume of imports of the subject

merchandise for the period of seven years, 1992-1998, is zero. As a

result, the Department agrees with the CPTI's claim that, after the

issuance of the order, imports of the subject merchandise ceased.

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

\4\ This 1985 import volume was supplied by the CPTI.

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

As noted above, the Department normally will determine that the

cessation of imports after the issuance of the order is highly

probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.

In conclusion, inasmuch as the respondent interested parties waived

their right to participate in this review, the deposit rates continue

to exist, and imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the

imposition of the order, we find that revocation of the antidumping

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

dumping.

Magnitude of the Margin

In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that it

normally will 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.)

The Department, in its notice of the antidumping duty order on

rectangular pipes from Singapore, established both company-specific and

all-others weighted-average dumping margins of 12.03 percent for all

imports of the subject merchandise from Singapore (51 FR 41142,

November 13, 1986). We note that, to date, the Department has not

issued any duty absorption findings in this case.

The CTPI urges the Department to determine that the magnitude of

the dumping margins that are likely to prevail, if the order is

revoked, should be those from the original investigation. (See the

CTPI's June 2, 1999, substantive response.) We agree with the CPTI.

Absent argument and evidence to the contrary, we find the margins

calculated in the original investigation are probative of the behavior

of Singaporean producers/exporters if the order were revoked, as those

are the only margins which reflect the behavior of Singaporean

producers/exporters absent the discipline of the order. Therefore, we

will report to the Commission the company-specific and all-others

margins reported in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

Final Results of Review

Based on the above analysis, the Department finds that revocation

of the antidumping order would likely lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Steel Tubes of Singapore (PTE), Ltd........................ 12.03

All others................................................. 12.03

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

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.

[[Page 67870]]

Dated: November 29, 1999.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-31431 Filed 12-2-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P