Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barbed Wire and Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-357-405]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barbed Wire and

Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Barbed Wire

and Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina

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

SUMMARY: On December 2, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the

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

barbed wire and barbless fencing wire from Argentina (63 FR 66527)

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 industry 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 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: Scott E. Smith 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-

6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 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''). 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 order is barbed wire

and barbless fencing wire from Argentina, which is currently

classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number

7313.00.00. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.

This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of

barbed wire and barbless fencing wire from Argentina.

[[Page 16900]]

Background

On December 2, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of

the antidumping order on barbed wire and barbless fencing wire from

Argentina (63 FR 66527), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The

Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of

Davis Wire Corporation, Keystone Steel & Wire Company and Oklahoma

Steel & Wire Company, Inc. (``domestic interested parties'') on

December 16, 1998, within the deadline specified in section

351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Each company claimed

interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a

domestic producer of barbed wire. In addition, Keystone Steel & Wire

Company indicated that it is the successor-in-interest to the original

petitioner, Forbes Steel & Wire Corporation, and Davis Wire Corporation

indicated that it is the successor-in-interest to one of the companies

that supported the original petition in this case, CF&I Steel

Corporation. Further, Oklahoma Steel & Wire Company, Inc. indicated

that it supported the original petition filed by Forbes Steel & Wire

Corporation in 1984. We received a complete substantive response from

the domestic interested parties on January 4, 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.

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, 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.3). 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 guidance on likelihood provided in the Sunset Policy

Bulletin and legislative history, 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.

The antidumping duty order on barbed wire and barbless fencing wire

from Argentina was published in the Federal Register on November 13,

1985 (50 FR 46808). No administrative reviews of this case have been

conducted by the Department.1 The order remains in effect

for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.

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

\1\ The Department did publish the following notice prior to the

establishment of the antidumping duty order. See Barbed Wire and

Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina: Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value; 50 FR 38563, September 23, 1985.)

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

In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties argue

that the likely effect of revocation of the order against barbed wire

from Argentina is that dumping would recur (see January 4, 1999

Substantive Response of the Domestic Interested Parties at 2). With

respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the

issuance of the order, the domestic interested parties, citing American

Iron and Steel Institute data, state that imports of barbed wire from

Argentina disappeared from the U.S. market during the course of the

original antidumping investigation, and that there have been no imports

at all since 1986 (see January 4, 1999 Substantive Response of the

Domestic Interested Parties at 2). Further, with respect to whether

dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of

the order, the domestic interested parties state that the dumping

margin has remained at 69.02 percent ad valorem during the life of the

order (see January 4, 1999 Substantive Response of the Domestic

Interested Parties at 2).

In conclusion, the domestic interested parties argued that the

Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping

would resume if the order were to be revoked because (1) shipments of

subject merchandise ceased following the imposition of the order and

have not resumed, (2) dumping margins have existed for all known

exporters of the subject merchandise during the entire life of the

order, and (3) there are no significant barriers for new or former

suppliers to enter the market.

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

considered the volume of imports of the subject merchandise before and

after issuance of the order. The statistics on imports of the subject

merchandise between 1980 and 1997, provided by the domestic interested

parties and confirmed by U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports, indicate

that imports of the subject merchandise ceased after 1986 and have not

resumed.

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

SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, ``[i]f imports cease after

the order is issued, 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.'' Imports of barbed

wire and barbless fencing wire from Argentina ceased soon after the

issuance of the order. The Department finds that the cessation of

imports after the

[[Page 16901]]

issuance of the order is highly probative of the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of dumping. Furthermore, deposit rates above

de minimis levels continue in effect for all shipments of the subject

merchandise from Argentina.2 Therefore, absent argument and

evidence to the contrary, given that shipments of the subject

merchandise ceased soon after the issuance of the order, that dumping

margins continue to exist, and that respondent interested parties have

waived their right to participate in this review before the Department,

we determine that, consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy

Bulletin, dumping is likely to continue or recur if the order were

revoked.

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

\2\ See Barbed wire and Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina:

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 50 FR 38563

(September 23, 1985) and Antidumping Duty Order: Barbed Wire and

Barbless Fencing Wire from Argentina, 50 FR 46808 (November 13,

1985).

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

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.)

The Department, in its final determination of sales at less than

fair value, published a weighted-average dumping margin for one

Argentine manufacturer/exporter, Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros

S.A. (``Acindar'') (50 FR 38563, September 23, 1985). The Department

also published an ``all others'' rate in this same Federal Register

notice. With respect to duty absorption findings, because there have

been no completed administrative reviews of the order, the Department

has not had the opportunity to address the issue of duty absorption.

In its substantive response, the domestic interested parties state

that the weighted-average dumping margin calculated by the Department

for Acindar in the original investigation is the dumping margin likely

to prevail if the order were revoked (see January 4, 1999 Substantive

Response of the Domestic Interested Parties at 4). The domestic

interested parties make this statement because this order has never

undergone an administrative review and the dumping margin from the

original investigation provides the best evidence of the likely dumping

margin in the absence of the order.

The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties'

argument concerning the choice of the margin rate to report to the

Commission. An examination of the margin history of the order as well

as an examination of import statistics of the subject merchandise, as

provided in U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Statistics data, confirms

that dumping margins have existed throughout the life of the order and

that imports of the subject merchandise ceased soon after its

imposition.

The Department finds the margin from the original investigation is

the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters

without the discipline of the order. Therefore, consistent with the

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

Department's original investigation is probative of the behavior of

Argentine producers and exporters of barbed wire and barbless fencing

wire if the order were revoked. We will report to the Commission the

company-specific and ``all others'' rate from the original

investigation 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 order would likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter (percent)

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

Acindar.................................................... 69.02

All Others................................................. 69.02

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

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: April 1, 1999.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-8625 Filed 4-6-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P