[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66884-66886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30961]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-601]
Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Malleable Cast Iron Pipe
Fittings From Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of full sunset review: Malleable cast
iron pipe fittings from Thailand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 29, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full
sunset review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe
fittings from Thailand (64 FR 41082) 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 respondent interested parties and rebuttal
comments from domestic interested parties. The Department did not
receive a request for a public hearing and, therefore, no hearing was
held. 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 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, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30, 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
Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain malleable
cast iron pipe fittings, other than grooved, from Thailand. These
products are currently classifiable under item numbers 7307.19.90.30,
7307.19.90.60, and 7307.19.90.80 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (``HTSUS''). The HTSUS item numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes.
Background
On May 28, 1999, the Department issued the Preliminary Results of
Full Sunset Review: Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from Thailand (64
FR 41082) (``Preliminary Results''). In our Preliminary Results, we
found that revocation of the order would likely result in 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 1.70 percent for Siam Fittings Co., Ltd. (``Siam'') as
well as for all other producers and/or exporters.
On September 13, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR
351.309(c)(1)(i), we received comments on behalf of Siam, Thai
Malleable Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., and BIS Pipe Fittings Industry Co.,
Ltd. (collectively, ``the Thai respondents''). On September 20, 1999,
within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(d), the Department
received rebuttal comments from the Cast Iron Pipe Fittings Committee
and its individual members, Grinnell Corporation and Ward
Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, ``CIPFC''). No public hearing was
requested or held in this sunset review. We have addressed the comments
received below.
Comments
Comment 1: The Thai respondents argue that the Department's
preliminary determination concerning the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence of dumping fails to reflect congressional intent. They argue
that the Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') expressly states
that increasing exports after the issuance of an antidumping duty order
is indicative that dumping is not likely to continue or resume if the
order were revoked. Specifically,
[[Page 66885]]
quoting the SAA at 889-90, the Thai respondents state that declining
(or no) dumping margins accompanied by steady or increasing imports may
indicate that foreign companies do not have to dump to maintain market
share in the United States and that dumping is less likely to continue
or recur if the order were revoked. The Thai respondents state that
imports of the subject merchandise from Thailand increased three-fold
over the life of the order. Moreover, the Thai respondents assert that,
during the past five years, exports of subject merchandise from
Thailand consistently exceeded the quantity exported from Thailand
prior to the issuance of the order. Thus, according to the Thai
respondents, increasing imports of subject merchandise from Thailand
favors a determination that dumping is not likely to prevail.
In rebuttal, the CIPFC argues that the Thai respondents increasing
import volumes argument is inaccurate. The CIPFC states that the Thai
respondents, in their February 3, 1999, substantive response, admitted
that exports of pipe fittings from Thailand have fluctuated during the
last five years. Furthermore, the CIPFC states that there has actually
been a decline in import volumes in four of the last five years (1994-
1998). Therefore, according to CIPFC, there are not legitimate grounds
for the Department to make a ``no likelihood'' determination.
Department: The Department disagrees with the Thai respondents. The
existence of increasing imports by itself does not indicate that there
would be no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.
Rather, as provided in the SAA and Sunset Policy Bulletin, declining or
no dumping margins accompanied by steady or increasing imports may
indicate that a company does not have to dump in order to maintain
market share. In this case, there has been no decline in dumping
margins. Rather, absent administrative review, the dumping margin from
the original investigation is the only indicator available to the
Department with respect to the level of dumping. Because 1.70 percent
is above the 0.5 percent de minimis standard applied in sunset reviews,
we find that dumping has continued over the life of the order and is
likely to continue if the order were revoked.
Comment 2: The Thai respondents argue that the fact that the
domestic producers have never bothered to request that the Department
conduct an administrative review of this order further supports a
finding of no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping.
Citing to the preamble of the Department's May 1997 final regulations,
the Thai respondents indicate that the Department itself has recognized
that, ``[i]f domestic interested parties do not request a review,
presumably it is because they acknowledge that subject merchandise
continues to be fairly traded''. Furthermore, the Thai respondents cite
to the Department's final determination in the sunset review of sugar
and syrups from Canada (64 FR 48362 (September 3, 1999)) in which,
according to the Thai respondents, the Department concluded that the
absence of a domestic party request for an administrative review points
to a finding of no dumping.
The CIPFC argues that the Thai respondents have completely
mischaracterized the Department's sunset determination in sugar and
syrups from Canada. The CIPFC asserts that the Department specifically
rejected the proposition that the absence of administrative reviews
could be equated with a lack of domestic industry interest in the
order. More importantly, according to CIPFC, the sugar and syrups from
Canada case involved a zero deposit rate which had remained in effect
for many years, whereas respondents in this case have a 1.70 percent
deposit rate.
Department: We do not agree that the absence of a request for an
administrative review of this order supports an inference that the
subject merchandise continues to be fairly trades or points to finding
of no dumping. Unlike the facts in sugar and syrups from Canada, in
which a zero deposit rate had been in effect for many years, the record
in this case demonstrates the existence of an above de minimis deposit
rate. Therefore, the domestic interested parties' lack of request of an
administrative review presumably reflects their belief that dumping
continues at a rate of 1.70.
Comment 3: The Thai respondents reiterate their arguments from
their February 3, 1999, substantive response concerning the de minimis
standard in their comments on the Department's Preliminary Results. The
Thai respondents argue that, under current WTO standards, a 1.70
percent dumping margin would be de minimis. According to the Thai
respondents, Article 5.8 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article
VI (``Antidumping Agreement'') defines a de minimis margin of dumping
as one that is less than two percent. The Thai respondents acknowledge
that the Department's regulations impose a 0.5 percent de minimis
standard for reviews (see 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), however, they argue
that regulations which are inconsistent with the Antidumping Agreement
should not be given effect.
The CIPFC, in its September 20, 1999, rebuttal comments, states
that the Department has already soundly rejected the treatment of
Siam's 1.70 dumping margin as de minimis. The CIPFC further states that
the statute and the regulations encompassing the Uruguay Round
commitments establish a de minimis rate of 0.5 percent (see 19 USC
Sec. 1675a(c)(4)(B) and 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). Furthermore, according to
the CIPFC, 19 USC Sec. 3512(d) specifically provides that rates above
0.5 percent are not de minimis in sunset reviews.
Department: The Department agrees with the CIPFC. Both the statute
and regulations clearly provide that in reviews of orders, the
Department will treat as de minimis any weighted average dumping margin
that is less than 0.5 percent ad valorem (see section 752(c)(4)(B) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)). Further, section 752(c)(4)(B) of the
Act specifically provides that the de minimis standard to be applied in
sunset reviews is the standard applied in reviews conducted under
subsections (a) and (b) of section 751 (i.e., 0.5 percent). Finally, we
note that the SAA at 845 specifies that the requirements of Article 5.8
apply only to investigations, not to reviews of antidumping duty orders
or suspended investigations. Therefore, we find that the 1.70 percent
deposit are applied to Siam as well as all other Thai producers and/or
exporters, is not de minimis for the purposes of this sunset review.
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 and those above. Furthermore, for the reasons set
forth in our Preliminary Results of review and those above, we find
that margins calculated in the original investigations are probative of
the behavior of Thai producers and/or 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siam........................................................ 1.70
All Other Producers/Exporters............................... 1.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
[[Page 66886]]
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 of 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: November 22, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-30961 Filed 11-29-99; 8:45]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
