[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42905-42907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20341]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-806]
Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rope
From Mexico
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: carbon
steel wire rope from Mexico.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 4, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order
on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico (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 and adequate substantive
comments filed on behalf of domestic interested parties and inadequate
response (in this case, no response) from respondent interested
parties, the Department determined to conduct an expedited review. As a
result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the
antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final 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 Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
Effective Date: August 6, 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''). 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 this antidumping duty order is carbon
steel wire rope from Mexico. Carbon steel wire rope includes ropes,
cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel, other than stranded wire,
not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, and not made up of
plated wire. The subject merchandise is classifiable under subheadings
7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060 and 7312.10.9090 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS). The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.
The review covers all manufacturers and exporters of Mexican carbon
steel wire rope.
History of the Order
The antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico
was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 1993 (58 FR 16173).
The Department, in the antidumping duty order, established a deposit
rate of 111.68 percent for Aceros Camesa S.A. de C.V. (Camesa). In
addition, the Department established a rate of 111.68 percent on all
other imports of the subject merchandise from Mexico (58 FR 16173,
March 25, 1993).
Since that time, the Department has conducted one administrative
review.1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Carbon Steel Wire Rope From Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 46735, September 2,
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
On January 4, 1999, the Department initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping order on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico (64 FR 364),
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice
of Intent to Participate on behalf of the Committee of Domestic Steel
Wire Rope and Specialty Cable Manufacturers (``the Committee'') on
January 19, 1999, within the deadline specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations.2 The Committee
claimed interested party status, under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(C) and (F), as
a trade association, the majority of whose members manufacture,
produce, or wholesale carbon steel wire rope in the United States. We
received a complete substantive response from the Committee on February
3, 1999, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations
under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). In its response, the Committee
indicated that it was the petitioner in the original investigation and
participated in the first administrative review of this order and is
currently participating in the ongoing second administrative review. We
did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested
party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C), the Department determined to conduct an
expedited, 120-day, review of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Committee's members include: Bergen Cable Technology,
Inc., Bridon American Corporation, Carolina Steel & Wire
Corporation, Continental Cable Company, Loos & Co., Inc., Macwhyte
Company, Paulsen Wire Rope Corporation, Sava Industries Inc.,
Strandflex (Division of MSW) and the Wire Rope Corporation of
America, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department determined that the sunset review of the antidumping
duty order on steel wire rope from Mexico 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).
[[Page 42906]]
(See section 751(c)(6)(C) of the Act.) Therefore, on May 3, 1999, the
Department extended the time limit for completion of the final results
of this review until not later than August 2, 1999, in accordance with
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Steel Wire Rope From Japan, Shop Towels From the
People's Republic of China, Shop Towels From Bangladesh, Candles
From the People's Republic of China, Steel Wire Rope From Mexico,
Shop Towels From Pakistan, Steel Wire Rope From South Korea,
Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From South Korea, Malleable Cast
Iron Pipe Fittings From Taiwan, Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings
From Japan: 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 this review to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in making this
determination, the Department shall consider the weighted-average
dumping margins determined in the 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 order, and
shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``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 the magnitude of the margin are discussed
below. In addition, the Committee's 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 review, 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 its substantive response, the Committee argues that revocation
of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rope from Mexico
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping (see
February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the Committee at 11). With
respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis
after the issuance of the order, the Committee asserts that a deposit
rate of 111.68 percent has been in effect on all imports of the subject
merchandise since the issuance of the order. The Committee notes,
however, that in the Department's final determination in the sole
administrative review (dated September 2, 1998), the Department reduced
the deposit rate for one Mexican manufacturer, Camesa, to zero (see
February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the Committee at 7).
With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased
after the issuance of the order, the Committee asserts that, following
the imposition of the order, imports of carbon steel wire rope from
Mexico all but ceased (see February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the
Committee at 3). Citing U.S. Census Bureau trade statistics, the
Committee asserts that imports of the subject merchandise decreased
from 2,882 net tons in the year preceding the imposition of the order
to 112 tons in the year of the order. The Committee asserts that import
values have not risen above this level in any succeeding
year.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Committee asserts that imports of non-subject
merchandise were misclassified as subject merchandise in both 1995
and 1998. It has requested verification of the import volumes of
subject merchandise from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of the
publication of this notice, the U.S. Census Bureau has not issued
any correction to its previously published import statistics for
this product. If this report were to confirm the Committee's
assertions, the import volumes of subject merchandise for 1995 and
1998 would be 0 and 39 tons per year, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the Committee argues that the Department should
determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were
the order revoked because (1) dumping margins above de minimis levels
have been in place since the imposition of the order and (2) imports of
the subject merchandise have been sporadic and extremely limited and do
not reflect actual commercial conditions under which Mexican producers
would operate in the absence of the order.
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 from Camesa and all
other Mexican producers/exporters throughout most of the life of the
order.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Carbon Steel Wire Rope From Mexico; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 46735, September 2,
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also
considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the
order. The Department, utilizing U.S. Census Bureau IM146 reports and
information concerning imports of subject merchandise from our original
investigation and subsequent administrative review, can confirm that
imports of the subject merchandise decreased sharply following the
imposition of the order and remain sporadic and limited. These facts
strongly support a finding that dumping is likely to continue in the
foreseeable future.
The Department notes that in the sole administrative review of this
order we calculated a dumping margin of zero for Camesa, who the
Department believes to be the sole producer/exporter of the subject
merchandise. However, the Department does not find this zero dumping
margin, in and of itself, to be indicative of the Camesa's behavior in
the absence of the order for several reasons. First, a single de
minimis dumping margin does not demonstrate that Camesa can
continuously and consistently sell subject merchandise in the United
States without dumping. This finding is also supported by the fact that
imports of subject merchandise from Mexico decreased dramatically
[[Page 42907]]
following the issuance of the order and have remained limited and
sporadic, including during the review period. Therefore, as set forth
in the Sunset Policy Bulletin (section II.A.3), and consistent with the
SAA at 889-90, and the House Report at 63, the Department finds that
where dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import
volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly, we normally
will determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be
likely to lead to recurrence of dumping. As such, given that import
volumes have fallen significantly since the imposition of the order and
that respondent interested parties have waived their right to
participate in this review before the Department, and, absent argument
and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that,
consistent with Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin, dumping
is likely to continue or recur if the order were revoked.
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 carbon steel wire
rope from Mexico, established a deposit rate of 111.68 percent for
Camesa. In addition, the Department established a rate of 111.68
percent on all other imports of the subject merchandise from Mexico (58
FR 16173, March 25, 1993). We note that, to date, the Department has
not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.
In its substantive response, the Committee argues that the
Department should report to the Commission the rate established in the
original investigation because, as stated in the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, it is the only calculated rate that reflects the behavior of
exporters without the discipline of the order. The Committee states
that the 111.68 percent rate has been in effect for all imports of the
subject merchandise and, only recently, was the deposit rate reduced to
zero with respect to Camesa. Further, the Committee argues that this
latest rate is based on an extremely limited and controlled shipment
made by Camesa in order to establish the basis for an administrative
review (see February 3, 1999 Substantive Response of the Committee at
6).
The Department agrees with the Committee. We find that the dumping
margin calculated in the original investigation is the only calculated
rate that reflects the behavior of exporters without the discipline of
the order. Consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, we determine
that the margin calculated in the Department's original investigation
is probative of the behavior of Mexican producers and exporters of
carbon steel wire rope if the order were revoked. Therefore, we will
report to the Commission the company-specific and ``all others'' rate
from the original investigation contained in the Final Results of
Review section of this notice.
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 at the margin listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camesa..................................................... 111.68
All Other Mexican Manufacturers/Exporters.................. 111.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: August 2, 1999.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-20341 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
