[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67248-67251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31225]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-506; A-583-505]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Oil Country Tubular
Goods From Canada and From Taiwan
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: Oil country
tubular goods from Canada.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 3, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
on oil country tubular goods (``OCTG'') from Canada and from Taiwan (64
FR 23596) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (``the Act''). On the basis of notices of intent to participate
and adequate substantive comments filed on behalf of domestic
interested parties and inadequate response (in these cases, no
response) from respondent interested parties, the Department determined
to conduct expedited reviews. As a result of these reviews, the
Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would
be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the
levels indicated in the Final Results of Reviews 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;
[[Page 67249]]
telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
These reviews were 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 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 merchandise subject to these antidumping duty orders is OCTG
from Canada and from Taiwan. This includes American Petroleum Institute
(``API'') specification OCTG and all other pipe with the following
characteristics except entries which the Department determined through
its end use certification procedure were not used in OCTG applications:
length of at least 16 feet; outside diameter of standard sizes
published in the API or proprietary specifications for OCTG with
tolerances of plus \1/8\ inch for diameters less than or equal to 8\5/
8\ inches and plus \1/4\ inch for diameters greater than 8\5/8\ inches,
minimum wall thickness as identified for a given outer diameter as
published in the API or proprietary specifications for OCTG; a minimum
of 40,000 PSI yield strength and a minimum 60,000 PSI tensile strength;
and if with seams, must be electric resistance welded. Furthermore,
imports covered by these reviews include OCTG with non-standard size
wall thickness greater than the minimum identified for a given outer
diameter as published in the API or proprietary specifications for
OCTG, with surface scabs or slivers, irregularly cut ends, ID or OD has
not been mechanically tested or has failed those tests.\1\ The
merchandise is currently, classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedules (``HTSUS'') item numbers 7304.20, 7305.20, and 7306.20. The
HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes.
The written description remains dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department determined, on April 30, 1991, that seamless
mechanical tubing/certain coupling stock meeting criteria are
excluded from the scope of the order (see Notice of Scope Rulings,
56 FR 19833 (April 30, 1991)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The order on OCTG from Canada covers all manufacturers and
exporters of Canadian OCTG, excluding Welded Tube of Canada, Ltd.
(``Welded Tube'') and Ipsco, Inc. (``Ipsco'').\2\ The order on OCTG
from Taiwan covers all manufacturers and exporters of Taiwanese OCTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Welded Tube was excluded from the Department's less than
fair value determination (see Antidumping; Oil Country Tubular Goods
From Canada; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
51 FR 15029 (April 22, 1986)). In addition, the Department revoked
this order with respect to Ipsco (see Oil Country Tubular Goods From
Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Revocation in Part of the Antidumping Duty Order, 61 FR 49733
(September 23, 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of the Orders
The antidumping duty order on OCTG from Canada was published in the
Federal Register on June 16, 1986 (51 FR 21782).\3\ The Department, in
the antidumping duty order, as amended, established deposit rates for
the following producers and/or exporters: 13.00 percent for Algoma
Steel Corporation, Ltd. (``Algoma''), 33.78 percent for Ipsco, and 3.18
percent for Sonco Steel Tube, Ltd. (``Sonco''). The Department also
established a 16.65 percent deposit rate for all other producers and/or
exporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The antidumping duty order was subsequently amended. See Oil
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) From Canada: Amendment to Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to
Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 29579 (August 19, 1986) and Oil
Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order in
Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 54 FR 41576 (October 10,
1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since that time, the Department has conducted six administrative
reviews.\4\ We note that, to date, the Department has not issued any
duty absorption findings in this case. The order remains in effect for
all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise, excluding
Welded Tube and Ipsco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of the
Antidumping Duty Order, 61 FR 49733 (September 23, 1996); Oil
Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 60 FR 35898 (July 12, 1995); Oil Country
Tubular Goods From Canada, Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 59 FR 34409 (July 5, 1994); Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Oil Country Tubular Goods
From Canada, 56 FR 41890 (August 23, 1991); Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Oil Country Tubular Goods
From Canada, 56 FR 38408 (August 13, 1991); Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews Oil Country Tubular Goods
From Canada, 55 FR 50379 (December 10, 1990); Oil Country Tubular
Goods From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order in Accordance With
Decision Upon Remand, 54 FR 41576 (October 10, 1989); Oil Country
Tubular Goods (OCTG) From Canada: Amendment to Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to Antidumping Duty
Order, 51 FR 29579 (August 19, 1986); Antidumping Duty Order: Oil
Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) From Canada, 51 FR 21782 (June 16,
1986); and Antidumping; Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 15029 (April
22, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The antidumping duty order on OCTG from Taiwan was published in the
Federal Register on June 16, 1986 (51 FR 22098). The Department, in the
antidumping duty order, established a deposit rate of 26.32 percent for
Far East Manufacturing Company (``Far East''). The Department also
established a 26.32 percent deposit rate for all other producers and/or
exporters. The Department has not conducted any administrative reviews
of this order. We note that, to date, the Department has not issued any
duty absorption findings in this case. The order remains in effect for
all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.
Background
On May 3, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on OCTG from Canada and from Taiwan (64 FR
23596), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received
Notices of Intent to Participate on behalf of North Star Steel Ohio
(``North Star''), Lone Star Steel Company (``Lone Star''), Maverick
Tube Corporation (``Maverick''), U.S. Steel Group (``U.S. Steel''), and
USS/Kobe Steel Company (``USS/Kobe'') (collectively, the ``domestic
interested parties'') on May 18, 1999, within the deadline specified in
section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.\5\ The domestic
interested parties claimed interested party status under section
771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. manufacturers of OCTG. We received
complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties on
June 2, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset
Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USS/Kobe only provided a substantive response to the Notice
of Initiation of the sunset review of OCTG from Canada. USS/Kobe did
not participate in the Department's sunset review of OCTG from
Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its response, Lone Star stated that it participated in the
original investigations of OCTG from Canada and from Taiwan.
Furthermore, Lone Star and Maverick stated that they had participated
in subsequent administrative reviews of the Canadian order. U.S. Steel
and USS/Kobe stated that neither has participated before the Department
in prior proceedings of the Canadian OCTG order. We did not
[[Page 67250]]
receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to
these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct expedited,
120-day, reviews of these orders.
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 August 31, 1999, the Department 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 these reviews to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in
making these determinations, the Department shall consider the
weighted-average dumping margins determined in the investigations 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 duty orders, and shall provide to the International Trade
Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping
likely to prevail if the orders are revoked.
The Department's determinations concerning continuation or
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed
below. In addition, the domestic interested 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.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 reviews, 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 their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties
argued that revocation of this antidumping duty orders would likely
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping by Canadian and Taiwanese
producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. With respect to
whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the
issuance of the orders, the domestic interested parties argued that
dumping has continued throughout the life of the orders at above de
minimis levels. Furthermore, USS/Kobe argued that the dumping margins
for some Canadian producers and/or exporters have not only continued
throughout the life of the order, but have consistently increased.
The domestic interested parties also argued that import volumes
have declined significantly since the issuance of the orders.
Specifically, the domestic interested parties argued that imports of
OCTG from Canada in the year prior to the imposition of the order
amounted to over 150,000 tons but have since almost completely ceased.
Specifically, North Star stated that imports of OCTG from Canada have
dropped to less than 1,500 tons per year. Furthermore, USS/Kobe
provided data which indicates that imports of OCTG from Canada in 1998
were less than 2,000 tons and have not exceeded 8,100 tons in any year
since 1991.
With respect to the Taiwanese order, Lone Star and Maverick argued
that imports of OCTG from Taiwan were nearly 10,000 tons prior to the
imposition of the order but have since almost completely disappeared.
In fact, Lone Star and Maverick stated that there were no shipments of
the subject merchandise from Taiwan in 1998.
In summary, the domestic interested parties argued that the
Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping
would continue were the orders revoked because (1) Dumping margins
above de minimis levels have been in place since the imposition of the
orders and (2) Imports of the subject merchandise have declined
significantly since the imposition of the orders.
As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, if companies continue
dumping with the discipline of an order in place, the Department may
reasonably infer that dumping would continue if the discipline were
removed. Dumping margins above de minimis levels have continued to
exist for shipments of the subject merchandise throughout the life of
the orders.
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the
orders. The Department, utilizing U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports,
agrees with the domestic interested parties that imports of the subject
merchandise decreased sharply following the imposition of the orders.
Furthermore, the Department agrees with Lone Star and Maverick that
there were no imports to the United States of Taiwanese OCTG in 1998.
However, imports of Taiwanese OCTG did resume in 1999. Despite the
dramatic decline in imports of OCTG from Canada and Taiwan and the
cessation of imports of Taiwanese OCTG in 1998, the Department can
confirm that imports of the subject merchandise continue from both
countries.
Based on our analysis of the records in these proceedings, the
Department finds that the existence of dumping margins after the
issuance of the orders is highly probative of the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping. Deposit rates above de minimis
levels continue in effect for exports of OCTG by all Canadian and
Taiwanese manufacturers and/or exporters subject to the
orders.7 Therefore, given that
[[Page 67251]]
dumping has continued over the life of the orders and respondent
interested parties have waived their right to participate in these
reviews before the Department, and absent argument and evidence to the
contrary, the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue
if the orders were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As noted above, with respect to the Canadian order, Welded
Tube was excluded from the Department's less than fair value
determination and the order was revoked with respect to Ipsco (see
Antidumping; Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 51 FR 15029 (April
22, 1986) and Oil Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part of
the Antidumping Duty Order, 61 FR 49733 (September 23, 1996)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Canada,
as amended, established deposit rates for the following producers and/
or exporters: 13.00 percent for Algoma, 33.78 percent for Ipsco, and
3.18 percent for Sonco. The Department also established a 16.65 percent
deposit rate for all other producers and/or exporters (51 FR 21782
(June 16, 1986)).8 We note that, to date, the Department has
not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The antidumping duty order was subsequently amended. See
Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) From Canada: Amendment to Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Amendment to
Antidumping Duty Order, 51 FR 29579 (August 19, 1986) and Oil
Country Tubular Goods From Canada; Amendment to Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order in
Accordance With Decision Upon Remand, 54 FR 41576 (October 10,
1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department, in the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Taiwan,
established a deposit rate of 26.32 percent for Far East. The
Department also established a 26.32 percent deposit rate for all other
producers and/or exporters (51 FR 22098 (June 16, 1986)). We note that,
to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in
this case.
In its substantive responses, the domestic interested parties
argued that the Department should report to the Commission the deposit
rates established in the original investigations of these orders
because, as stated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, they are the only
calculated rates that reflect the behavior of producers and/or
exporters without the discipline of the order. Furthermore, with
respect to the order on OCTG from Canada, USS/Kobe argued that for two
additional producers not examined in the original investigation,
Christianson Pipe, Ltd. and Prudential Steel, Ltd., the Department
should report the all others rate from the original investigation.
The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties. We find
that the dumping margins calculated in the original investigations are
the only calculated rates that reflect the behavior of exporters
without the discipline of the orders. Consistent with the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, we determine that the margins calculated in the Department's
original investigations are probative of the behavior of Canadian and
Taiwanese producers and/or exporters of OCTG if the orders were
revoked. Therefore, we will report to the Commission the company-
specific and ``all others'' rates from the original investigations
contained in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
Final Results of Reviews
As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation
of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian manufacturers/exporters:
Algoma............................... 13.00
Sonco................................ 3.18
Ipsco................................ Revoked.
Welded Tube.......................... Excluded.
All Others............................... 16.65
Taiwanese manufacturers/exporters:
Far East............................. 26.32
All Others............................... 26.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: November 24, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-31225 Filed 11-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
