99-20225. Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 150 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 42665-42668]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-20225]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    
    International Trade Administration
    [A-588-605, A-580-507, and A-583-507]
    
    
    Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Malleable Cast Iron 
    Pipe Fittings From Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
    
    AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
    Department of Commerce.
    
    ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Malleable 
    cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
    Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
    on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and 
    Taiwan (64 FR 364) 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 responses (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: Martha V. Douthit or Melissa G. 
    Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International 
    Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution 
    Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207 or (202) 
    482-1560, respectively.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 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 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 these orders are shipments of certain malleable 
    cast iron pipe fittings, other than grooved, from Japan, South Korea, 
    and Taiwan. In the original orders, 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). By letter of February 8, 1989, the Department clarified that 
    union heads, tails, and nuts fell within the scope of the antidumping 
    duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from South 
    Korea.1 The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience 
    and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ See Letter to Thomas J. Lindmeier from Joseph A. Spetrini, 
    February 8, 1989.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        These orders apply to all imports of certain malleable cast iron 
    pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
    
    History of the Orders
    
    Japan
    
        The Department issued the antidumping duty order on malleable cast 
    iron pipe fittings from Japan on July 6, 1987 (52 FR 25281). The order 
    identified weighted-average margins of dumping of 57.79 percent for 
    Hitachi Metals Ltd. and all others. The Department has not conducted an 
    administrative review of the order.
    
    South Korea
    
        The Department issued the antidumping duty order on malleable cast 
    iron pipe fittings from South Korea on May 23, 1986 (51 FR 18917). The 
    order applied a weighted-average dumping margin of 12.48 percent to all 
    producers/exporters. Although not
    
    [[Page 42666]]
    
    specified in the order, the investigation covered Mijin Metal 
    Industrial Co., Ltd. (``Mijin''). The Department conducted one 
    administrative review of the order, covering the period May 1, 1987, 
    through April 30, 1988, and two Korean manufacturers; Mijin and Shin 
    Han Cast Iron Co., Ltd. (see 54 FR 13090 (March 30, 1989)).
    
    Taiwan
    
        The Department issued the antidumping duty order on malleable cast 
    iron pipe fittings from Taiwan on May 23, 1986 (51 FR 18918), as 
    amended (53 FR 784 (January 13, 1988)). The order applied weighted-
    average dumping margins to five Taiwanese producers/exporters as well 
    as to all others. The Department conducted two administrative reviews 
    of the order covering the periods January 14, 1986, through April 30, 
    1987, and May 1, 1987, through April 30, 1988 (see 53 FR 16179 (May 5, 
    1988) and 54 FR 38713 (September 20, 1989)).
    
    Background
    
        On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
    antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from 
    Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (64 FR 364) pursuant to section 751(c) 
    of the Act. On January 19, 1999, the Department received Notices 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 complete substantive responses to the notice of 
    initiation on February 3, 1999, on behalf of CIPFC. In its substantive 
    responses, CIPFC stated that it and its two current members have been 
    participants in these proceedings since the Department's original 
    investigations. We did not receive a substantive response from any 
    respondent interested party in any of the reviews.
        The Department determined that the sunset reviews of the 
    antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from 
    Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are extraordinarily complicated. 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). (See 
    section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) Therefore, on May 7, 1999, the 
    Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results 
    of these reviews until not later than August 2, 1999, in accordance 
    with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 2
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \2\ See Steel Wire Rope From Japan, et. al.: Extension of Time 
    Limit for Final Results of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 24573 (May 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(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 it shall provide to the Commission the 
    magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is 
    revoked.
        The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
    recurrence of dumping and magnitude of the margin likely to prevail are 
    discussed below. In addition, CIPFC's 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
    
        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.2 
    of the Sunset Policy Bulletin). Additionally, the Department normally 
    will determine that revocation of an 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).
        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 the order would be likely to lead to 
    continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested 
    party waives its participation in the sunset review. In these reviews, 
    the Department did not receive a substantive 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 its substantive responses, CIPFC argues that revocation of the 
    antidumping duty orders would likely result in the continuation or 
    resumption of dumping of malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, 
    South Korea, and Taiwan. CIPFC asserts 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 
    cites to the SAA and comments 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. CIPFC notes 
    that a deposit rate based on the weighted-average dumping margin of 
    57.39 percent, as established in the antidumping duty order covering 
    Japan, has remained unchanged over the life of the order. With respect 
    to the margins established in the orders on South Korea and Taiwan, 
    CIPFC asserts that the margins have increased as a result of 
    administrative reviews. Specifically, CIPFC asserts that, as a result 
    of an administrative review on the order covering imports from Korea, 
    undertaken by the Department in 1989, company-specific margins for two 
    Korean producers increased from 12.48 percent to 25.59 percent. 
    Additionally, CIPFC asserts that, as a result of reviews on the order 
    covering imports from Taiwan, the margins increased from a range of 
    7.95-80 percent to 37.09-138.81 percent.
        Additionally, CIPFC asserts that the volume of imports of subject
    
    [[Page 42667]]
    
    merchandise from all three countries declined after the issuance of the 
    orders. CIPFC provided import statistics demonstrating that, in fact, 
    imports from each country decreased substantially after the imposition 
    of the orders and never achieved pre-order levels. Based on these 
    policies, CIPFC asserts that dumping of malleable cast iron pipe 
    fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would continue or recur if 
    the orders were to be revoked.
        Finally, in further support of the likelihood of continuation or 
    recurrence of dumping, in its substantive responses, CIPFC asserts that 
    malleable cast iron pipe fittings are standardized products. Thus, 
    imports and domestically manufactured pipe fittings are essentially 
    interchangeable. CIPFC argues that, as a result, the domestic industry 
    is vulnerable to unfairly priced imports.
        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 the 
    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 all exports of 
    malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. 
    Therefore, since dumping margins have continued over the life of the 
    order, import volumes declined significantly after the imposition of 
    the orders, respondent interested parties waived participation, and 
    absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines 
    that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the orders were revoked.
    
    Magnitude of the Margin
    
        In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that, 
    consistent with 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, the Department has not conducted an administrative 
    review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe 
    fittings from Japan. The Department conducted one administrative review 
    of the antidumping duty order covering South Korea and two 
    administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order covering Taiwan. 
    The Department has not issued a duty absorption determination with 
    respect to any of these orders.
        In its substantive response in the review on Japan, CIPFC argues 
    that, consistent with the provisions of the statute, SAA, and Sunset 
    Policy Bulletin, the Department should determine that the margin likely 
    to prevail if the antidumping duty order on Japan were revoked is the 
    margin from the original investigation, as that is the only calculation 
    margin available to the Department.
        In its substantive response in the review on South Korea, CIPFC 
    refers to the Sunset Policy Bulletin and argues that increasing margins 
    may be more representative of a company's behavior absent the 
    discipline of the order. CIPFC asserts further that no company-specific 
    rate was published by the Department in the original investigation. 
    Therefore, consistent with the Department's practice related to 
    findings issued by the Treasury Department where no company-specific 
    rate is published, CIPFC urges the Department to rely on the company-
    specific rates from the first administrative review, as these are the 
    only company-specific rates available to the Department. Therefore, 
    CIPFC asserts that the 25.59 percent margins applied to Mijin and Shin 
    Han Cast Iron Co., Ltd., as a result of the administrative review are 
    the rates likely to prevail were the order revoked.
        With respect to the order on Taiwan, CIPFC cites to the Sunset 
    Policy Bulletin and argues that the more recently calculated margins 
    resulting from the administrative review in 1989 are more 
    representative of Taiwanese producer's likely behavior if the order 
    were to be revoked than are the original rates. CIPFC asserts that the 
    Department should provide the highest company-specific dumping margins 
    available to the Commission as this is representative of the magnitude 
    of the margin likely to prevail.
        We agree with CIPFC with respect to the selection of the margin 
    likely to prevail were the order on Japan revoked. The Department finds 
    that the margin from the original investigation is the only calculated 
    rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the discipline of 
    the order and, thus, is probative of the behavior of Japanese 
    producers/exporters.
        With respect to CIPFC's argument that no company-specific margin 
    was issued in the order on South Korea, we disagree. While the order 
    and final and preliminary determinations of sales at less than fair 
    value specify that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin 
    applies to all imports, review of the notices of preliminary and final 
    determinations makes clear that the margin was calculated on the basis 
    of the response of Mijin. 3 Therefore, the 12.48 percent 
    margin from the original investigation applied to Mijin and all others.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ See Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings, Other than Grooved, 
    From Korea, 51 FR 1546 (January 14, 1986) and 51 FR 10900 (March 31, 
    1986).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        We disagree with CIPFC's suggestion that we should select the 
    highest rates from the administrative reviews of the orders on South 
    Korea and Taiwan as the margins likely to prevail if the orders were 
    revoked. The Sunset Policy Bulletin refers to the selection of a 
    recently calculated rate in cases where companies choose to increase 
    dumping to maintain or increase market share. Based on the import 
    statistics provided by CIPFC, this is clearly not the case with respect 
    to these orders. Rather, as CIPFC argues, imports decreased after the 
    issuance of the orders. There is no evidence that Korean or Taiwanese 
    exporters increased dumping in order to maintain or increase market 
    share.
        Based on the above analysis, we find no reason to deviate from our 
    policy of selecting the margins from the original investigation as 
    probative of the behavior of the producers/exporters absent the 
    discipline of the order. Therefore, the Department will report to the 
    Commission the company-specific and the all others margins from the 
    original investigations as contained in the ``Final Results of 
    Reviews'' section of this notice.
    
    Final Results of Review
    
        As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation 
    of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to the continuation or 
    recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Margin
                       Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Japan:
        Hitachi Metals, Ltd. (HML).............................        57.39
        All Others.............................................        57.39
    Korea:
        Mijin Metal Industrial Co., Ltd........................        12.48
        All Others.............................................        12.48
    
    [[Page 42668]]
    
     
    Taiwan:
        San Yan Metal Industries Co., Ltd......................        27.90
        De Ho..................................................        13.12
        Tai Yang...............................................        37.09
        Kwang Yu...............................................         7.93
        Young Shieng...........................................        80.00
        All Others.............................................        28.27
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        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.
        We are issuing and publishing the determination and notice in 
    accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
    
        Dated: July 30, 1999.
    Joseph A. Spetrini,
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
    [FR Doc. 99-20225 Filed 8-4-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
8/5/1999
Published:
08/05/1999
Department:
International Trade Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Notice of final results of expedited sunset reviews: Malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Document Number:
99-20225
Dates:
August 5, 1999.
Pages:
42665-42668 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
A-588-605, A-580-507, and A-583-507
PDF File:
99-20225.pdf