[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53321-53323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25626]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-357-007]
Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod From
Argentina
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel
Wire Rod from Argentina.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 28, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full
sunset review of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rod
from Argentina (64 FR 28975) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). We provided interested parties
an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We received
comments from both domestic and respondent interested parties. As a
result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of this
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: October 1, 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-
[[Page 53322]]
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 carbon
steel wire rod from Argentina. This merchandise is currently
classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS) item numbers 7213.20.00, 7213.31.30, 7213.39.00, 7213.41.30,
7213.49.00, and 7213.50.00. Although the item numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains
dispositive.
Background
On May 28, 1999, the Department issued the Preliminary Results of
Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Argentina (64 FR 28975)
(``Preliminary Results''). In our preliminary results, we found that
revocation of the order would likely result in the continuation or
recurrence of dumping. In addition, we preliminarily determined that
the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order
were revoked was 119.11 percent for Acindar Industria Argentina de
Aceros S.A. (``Acindar'') and all others.
On July 12, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.209(c)(1)(i), we received comments on behalf of Co-Steel (formerly
Raritan River Steel), GS Industries, and North Star Steel Company
(collectively, the ``domestic interested parties''), the domestic
participants in this review, and on behalf of Acindar, the respondent
in this review. On July 15, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19
CFR 351.309(d), the Department received rebuttal comments from the
domestic interested parties. We have addressed the comment received
below.
Comment
Comment 1: Acindar, in its July 12, 1999, case brief, states that
they disagree with the Department's Preliminary Results in this sunset
proceeding. Acindar argues that the 119.11 percent dumping margin to be
reported to the Commission by the Department is not representative of
the rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Acindar asserts
that in a situation where the rate determined in the original
investigation is not a rate based on a respondent's own data, as exists
in this case, that rate should not be reported by Department.
Furthermore, Acindar argues that the only administrative review
conducted by the Department in which Acindar's own data was used
resulted in a dumping margin of zero.
In addition, Acindar argues that this fifteen year old rate does
not reflect the significant changes which have taken place in the
industry and market for subject merchandise since the imposition of the
order. According to Acindar, the intervention of numerous events--
Mercosur, NAFTA, the changes in the Argentine currency, and the
substantial changes in the wire rod industry in the United States and
worldwide--all greatly weaken any inference that the rate of dumping
``likely to recur'' is the rate hypothesized for Acindar in the early
1980's.
The domestic interested parties, in their July 12, 1999, case
brief, stated that they agree with the Department's Preliminary Results
in this proceeding. With respect to Acindar's assertion, the domestic
interested parties, citing the SAA in their July 15, 1999, rebuttal
brief, state that the dumping margin from the original investigation is
the only rate that properly reflects the behavior of exporters prior to
the issuance of the antidumping duty order. According to the domestic
interested parties, Acindar's request that the Department select
another rate to report to the Commission is in direct contradiction to
the SAA. They argue that the rate from the original investigation is
the most appropriate to report to the Commission. Lastly, the domestic
interested parties argue that the age of margin the Department reports
to the Commission is irrelevant and that the rate from the original
investigation, regardless of how long ago the order was created, is
most probative of the rate likely to prevail because it is the only
rate which reflects the behavior of producers and/or exporters absent
the discipline of the order.
Department Position: The Department agrees with the domestic
interested parties. The Department's Sunset Regulations state that we
will normally provide the company-specific margin from the
investigation for each company regardless of whether the margin was
calculated using a company's own information or based on best
information available or facts available. As stated in our Preliminary
Results, the rate assigned to Acindar in the original investigation is
the only one which reflects its behavior absent the discipline of the
order and therefore is the most appropriate to report to the Commission
as the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. The
Department finds no reason to deviate from its stated policy in this
proceeding.
As for the zero dumping margin attained by Acindar in the sole
administrative review of this order, the Department does not find this
rate probative of the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be
revoked. In its Preliminary Results, the Department noted that the
establishment of this zero dumping margin was preceded by a significant
reduction in import volumes of the subject merchandise. Furthermore,
throughout the life of the order, import volumes have remained
substantially below their pre-imposition of the order levels. This
strongly suggests to the Department that Acindar had to dramatically
reduce its exports of subject merchandise to the United States in order
to eliminate dumping and would be unable to sell significant quantities
(e.g. pre-imposition quantities) of subject merchandise in the United
States and maintain a dumping margin of zero. Furthermore, the
Department notes that a zero or de minimis dumping margin, in itself,
does not require the Department to determine that continuation or
recurrence of dumping is not likely nor does it indicate to the
Department that a zero or de minimis margin is the margin likely to
prevail if the order were to be revoked. See section 772(c)(4)(A) of
the Act.
Final Results of 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 for the reasons set forth in our preliminary
results of review. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in our
preliminary results of review and as discussed above, we find that the
margins calculated in the original investigation are probative of the
behavior of Argentine producers/exporters of the subject merchandise.
As such, the Department will report to the Commission the company-
specific and all others rates from the original investigation listed
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acindar...................................................... 119.11
All Others................................................... 119.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 53323]]
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: September 27, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-25626 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
