[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 145 (Thursday, July 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41082-41085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19445]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-601]
Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Malleable Cast Iron
Pipe Fittings From Thailand
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of Full Sunset Review: Malleable
cast iron pipe fittings from Thailand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999 the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Thailand (64 FR 364) 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 filed on behalf of
domestic interested parties and adequate substantive comments filed on
behalf of both domestic and respondent interested parties, the
Department is conducting a full review. As a result of this review, the
Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping duty
order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the levels indicated in the Preliminary 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 & Constitution,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6397 or (202) 482-1560,
respectively.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 1999.
Statute and Regulations
This review is being 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 351
[[Page 41083]]
(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 review are shipments of certain malleable
cast iron pipe fittings, other than grooved, from Thailand. In the
original order, these products were classified in the Tariff Schedules
of the United States, Annotated, (TSUSA) under item numbers 610.7000
and 610.7400. 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. The written
description remains dispositive.
This order applies to all imports of certain malleable cast iron
pipe fittings from Thailand.
History of the Order
The Department issued a final determination of sales at less than
fair value on July 6, 1989, finding a weighted-average margin of 1.70
percent for Siam Fittings Ltd. (``Siam'') and for all others (52 FR
25282). The antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings
from Thailand was published in the Federal Register on July 6, 1987 (52
FR 25282), as amended (52 FR 37351, October 6, 1987). Since that time
the Department has not conducted an administrative review of this
order.
Background
On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from
Thailand (64 FR 364) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. On January
19, 1999, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on
behalf of the Cast Iron Pipe Fittings Committee and its members,
Grinnell Corporation and Ward Manufacturing (collectively ``CIPFC''),
within the applicable deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of
the Sunset Regulations. The CIPFC claimed interested party status under
section 771(9)(F) of the Act as an ad hoc trade association consisting
entirely of U.S. manufacturers of malleable cast iron pipe fittings.
We received a complete substantive response to the notice of
initiation on February 3, 1999, on behalf of CIPFC. In its substantive
response, CIPFC stated that both itself and its two current members
have been participants in this proceeding since the Department's
original investigation. We received a complete substantive response on
behalf of Thai Malleable Iron and Steel Co., Ltd, BIS Pipe Fitting
Industry Co., Ltd., and Siam (collectively respondent interested
parties) on February 3, 1999. In their substantive response, each
company claimed interested party status under section 771(9) of the
Act, as a foreign manufacturer of malleable cast iron pipe fittings.
Further, respondent interested parties claimed that although only Siam
participated in the Department's original investigation, each company
participated in the injury determination conducted by the International
Trade Commission (``the Commission'').
On February 8, 1999, we received rebuttal comments from CIPFC and
respondent interested parties.
Respondent interested parties stated that they are the only known
exporters of subject merchandise from Thailand to the United States and
they claimed to account for more than 50 percent of imports of the
subject merchandise over the most recent five years. Because the
Department determined that respondent interested parties accounted for
significantly more than 50 percent of the value of total exports of the
subject merchandise over the five calendar years preceding the
initiation of the sunset review, their response constituted an adequate
response to the notice of initiation. Thus, the Department is
conducting a full (240 day) review in accordance with section
351.218(e)(2)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.
The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping
duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Thailand is
extraordinarily complicated. In accordance with section 751(c)(6)(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). (See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.)
Therefore, on May 3, 1999, the Department extended the time limit for
completion of the preliminary results of this review until not later
than July 23, 1999, in accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the
Act.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From Brazil and
Thailand: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Five-
Year Reviews, 64 FR 23598 (May 3, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination
In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is
conducting this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(b) of the Act provides that, in
making this determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-
average dumping margins determined in the original 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 duty order, and shall provide to the Commission the
magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is
revoked.
The Department's preliminary determinations concerning continuation
or recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin likely to prevail
are discussed below. In addition, parties' comments with respect to
continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin
likely to prevail are addressed within the respective sections below.
Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping
Party Comments
In its substantive response, CIPFC argued that revocation of the
antidumping duty order would likely result in the continuation or
resumption of dumping of malleable cast iron pipe fittings from
Thailand. CIPFC asserted that, in accordance with the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, the Department normally will determine that revocation of an
antidumping duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping where dumping continued at any level above de minimis after
the issuance of the order. Further, CIPFC cited to the SAA and noted
that continuation of dumping at any level above de minimis after the
issuance of the order is highly probative of the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping. Based on these policies, the
CIPFC asserts that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin of
1.70 percent as determined in the original investigation has remained
unchanged since the imposition of the antidumping duty order.
[[Page 41084]]
In their substantive response, respondent interested parties
asserted that the likely effects of revocation are that the trade will
continue as it has for the last ten years, with the Thai exporters
shipping to the United States when there is sufficient demand. Further,
respondent interested parties argued that exports of pipe fittings from
Thailand have fluctuated during the last five years while the dumping
margin has remained constant. In conclusion, the respondent interested
parties asserted that the fact that revocation is unlikely to have any
effect is supported by the fact that no member of the domestic industry
has requested an administrative review of the order.
In its rebuttal comments CIPFC argued that the respondent
interested parties failed to apply, or even identify, the test used by
the Department to determine whether revocation of an order is likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. Rather, respondent
interested parties proffered arguments that speak to the issues that
may be relevant to the Commission. CIPFC asserted that dumping was not
eliminated after the issuance of the order and, based on statistics
provided by respondent interested parties, exports over the past five
years have decreased. Therefore, CIPFC asserted that the evidence on
the record justifies a determination that revocation would be likely to
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.
In their rebuttal comments, respondent interested parties referred
to the language of the SAA that specifies 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. Citing to the volume of exports
prior to the issuance of the order, as reported in their substantive
response, and using import statistics CIPFC relied on in
contemporaneous sunset reviews of other antidumping duty orders on pipe
fittings, respondent interested parties argued that exports from
Thailand after the issuance of the dumping order actually increased
over three-fold. In conclusion, respondent interested parties argued
that the Department must conclude that dumping is not likely to resume
if the order were revoked given that exports from Thailand to the
United States increased after the issuance of the order, that the 1.70
percent ad valorem margin would be deemed de minimis under the 1995 WTO
standards, and that the domestic industry never requested an
administrative review of the order.
Department's Determination
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 basis for
likelihood determinations. The Department clarified that determinations
of likelihood will be made on an order-wide basis (see section II.A.3
of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally
will determine that revocation of a antidumping duty 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.a of the Sunset Policy Bulletin).
Although respondent interested parties argue that the 2.0 percent
is the de minimis standard of Article 5.8 of the Antidumping Agreement
should apply, we disagree. 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, the SAA specifies that the requirements of
Article 5.8 apply only to investigations, not to reviews of antidumping
duty orders or suspended investigations (see SAA at 845).
As discussed in section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the
SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64, the existence of dumping
margins after the order is highly probative of the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping. If companies continue to dump
with the discipline of an order in place, it is reasonable to assume
that dumping would continue if the discipline were revoked. Deposit
rates above de minimis remain in effect for exports of malleable cast
iron pipe fittings from Thailand.
Therefore, since dumping margins have continued over the life of
the order, the Department preliminarily determines that dumping is
likely to continue if the order were revoked.
Magnitude of the Margin
Party Comments
In its substantive response, CIPFC argued that the Department
should determine that the margin likely to prevail if the antidumping
duty order were to be revoked is the Siam-specific and all other rates
from the original investigation, 1.70 percent. CIPFC asserted that they
would be consistent with the provisions of the statute, SAA, and Sunset
Policy Bulletin.
In their substantive response, the respondent interested parties
asserted that Article 5.8 of the Antidumping Agreement approved by the
WTO in 1995 provides that any dumping margin of less than 2 percent ad
valorem is to be treated as de minimis. Further, respondent interested
parties asserted that de minimis margins are regarded as zero margins
and referred to the language of the SAA (at 844) for support. In
conclusion, the respondent interested parties argued that given that
the only margin ever calculated was 1.70 percent ad valorem, there has
never been any sales in the United States with dumping margins.
Further, because there is no factual information available upon which
to forecast a dumping margin were the order to be revoked, the
Department should assume a margin of zero.
In its rebuttal comments, CIPFC argued that respondent interested
parties' reliance on the Antidumping Agreement Article 5.8 de minimis
standard of 2 percent ad valorem is misplaced. CIPFC noted that 19
U.S.C. 1675a(c)(4)(B) and 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1) provide that the de
minimis standard in sunset reviews is margins less than 0.5 percent ad
valorem. Thus, CIPFC argued that the Department should provide the
Commission with a magnitude of dumping margin of 1.7 percent for all
Thai producers.
As noted above, in their rebuttal comments, the respondent
interested parties asserted that the margin determined by the
Department in the original investigation was only 1.70 percent ad
valorem, a rate that would be deemed de minimis under the 1995 WTO
standards. As such, respondent interested parties asserted that the
Department must conclude that dumping is not likely to resume if the
order were to be revoked.
Department's Determination
In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that,
consistent with
[[Page 41085]]
the SAA and House Report, the Department normally will provide to the
Commission a margin from the investigation, because that is the only
calculated rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the
discipline of an order or suspension agreement in place. 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.
As noted above, in its final determination, the Department
published a weighted-average dumping margin of 1.70 percent for SIAM
and applied that same rate to all other producers/exporters of
malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Thailand. This is the only
margin of dumping determined by the Department over the life of this
order. For the reasons stated above, we agree with CIPFC that
respondent interested parties' reliance on a 2 percent de minimis
standard is misplaced. Therefore, the Department preliminarily
determines that the weighted-averaged dumping margin likely to prevail
if the order were to be revoked is 1.70 percent margin from the
original investigation.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that
revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping. The magnitude of the margin that
is likely to prevail is 1.70 percent for Siam and all others.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any
hearing, if requested, will be held on September 22, 1999. Interested
parties may submit case briefs no later than September 13, 1999, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later
than September 20, 1999. The Department will issue a notice of final
results of this sunset review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such comments, no later than November
30, 1999.
This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 23, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-19445 Filed 7-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
