95-25860. Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping Duty Orders and Findings Nor to Terminate Suspended Investigations

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53909-53910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25860]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration


Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping Duty Orders and Findings 
Nor to Terminate Suspended Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Determination Not to Revoke Antidumping Duty Orders and 
Findings Nor to Terminate Suspended Investigations.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is notifying the public of its 
determination not to revoke the antidumping duty order listed below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 18, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Panfeld or the analyst listed 

[[Page 53910]]
under Antidumping Proceeding at: Office of Antidumping Compliance, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Commerce (the Department) 
may revoke an antidumping duty order or finding or terminate a 
suspended investigation, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sec. 353.25(d)(4)(iii), 
if no interested party has requested an administrative review for four 
consecutive annual anniversary months and no domestic interested party 
objects to the revocation or requests an administrative review.
    The anniversary month for the Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel 
Pipe and Tube (P & T) from Taiwan antidumping duty order is May. With 
regard to P & T from Taiwan, the Department published its notice of 
intent to revoke the order on May 3, 1994. However, due to a 
ministerial oversight, the Department failed to notify the domestic 
interested parties of its action. On June 20, 1994, the Department sent 
a letter to the domestic interested parties notifying them of our 
previous action and informing them that any objections to the 
Department's intent to revoke the order on P & T from Taiwan must be 
made within 30 days. Domestic interested parties filed an objection on 
July 11, 1994.
    On September 19, 1994, Kao Hsing Chang Iron & Steel Corporation 
(KHC), a respondent, requested that the Department revoke the order 
because no interested party had objected by the last day of May 1994. 
KHC, citing the Court of International Trade's (CIT) ruling in Kemira 
Fibres Oy v. United States, 861 F. Supp. 144 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1994), 
argued that the objection of July 11, 1994, ``was invalid because the 
objection ensued in response to an invitation erroneously extended as 
the time to issue the notice had expired and Commerce was obligated to 
revoke the order.'' The CIT held that, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 
Sec. 353.25(d)(4)(iii), if no interested party objects to the 
Department's notice of intent to revoke by the last day of the fifth 
anniversary month of the order, then the Department must revoke the 
order, regardless of the time limit for objections specified by the 
Department in its notice of intent to revoke.
    On August 2, 1995, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
(CAFC) overturned the CIT 's ruling in Kemira Fibres Oy v. United 
States, Slip Op. 95-1077 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 1995). Among other things, 
the CAFC held that notice is of paramount importance in the ``sunset'' 
process:

    * * * there may be cases when administrative review is not 
warranted because interested parties are satisfied with an existing 
order. . . . In such a case, the domestic industry may have no 
incentive to request administrative review of the order. Thus, the 
absence of a request for administrative review, while it may 
indicate lack of interest, can also indicate satisfaction with the 
status quo. Consequently, Commerce may not reasonably conclude that 
there is a lack of interest in an outstanding order merely by the 
absence of a request for review, rather, only after publishing 
notice of proposed revocation may Commerce properly conclude that 
the order at issue is no longer of interest so as to be revocable.
    It is clear that notification of domestic parties so that their 
interest in revocation of an outstanding order may be ascertained 
and addressed is an overriding consideration in the regulatory 
framework and the legislative history of the antidumping statute. 
Given this, we conclude that Commerce's interpretation was a 
reasonable one. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844. Revocation must be 
predicated on a lack of industry interest and such interest must be 
ascertained through notification of an intent to revoke. The timing 
requirements of section 353.25(d)(4)(i)-(ii) are merely procedural 
aids in accomplishing this prerequisite to revocation. They are 
subordinate to the overriding requirement of notice. A contrary 
interpretation would defeat the clear intent of Congress.

    Within the time frame specified in our notice to interested parties 
of June 20, 1994, we received objections from the ``domestic interested 
parties'' to our intent to revoke this antidumping duty order. 
Therefore, in accordance with the CAFC's decision, because the 
``domestic interested parties'' timely objected to our intent to 
revoke, we no longer intend to revoke this antidumping duty order. 
Furthermore, in light of the CAFC's decision, the alternative arguments 
raised by the parties are moot.

Antidumping Proceeding

A-583-008
Taiwan
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe & Tubes
Objection Date: July 11, 1994
Objector: Wheatland Tube Corporation
Contact: Michael Heaney at [phone]

    Dated: October 11, 1995.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 95-25860 Filed 10-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P