Antidumping: Carbon steel wire rod from— Argentina,

Text

---

Federal Register: October 1, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 190)NoticesPage 53321-53323From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

DOCID:fr01oc99-54

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-357-007Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod From Argentina

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Argentina.

SUMMARY: On May 28, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the antidumping duty order on carbon steel wire rod from Argentina (64 FR 28975) 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 both domestic and respondent interested parties. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of this 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, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482- 6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 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-

[Page 53322]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 rod from Argentina. This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 7213.20.00, 7213.31.30, 7213.39.00, 7213.41.30, 7213.49.00, and 7213.50.00. Although the item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

Background

On May 28, 1999, the Department issued the Preliminary Results of Full Sunset Review: Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Argentina (64 FR 28975) (``Preliminary Results''). In our preliminary results, we found that revocation of the order would likely result in the 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 119.11 percent for Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. (``Acindar'') and all others.

On July 12, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.209(c)(1)(i), we received comments on behalf of Co-Steel (formerly Raritan River Steel), GS Industries, and North Star Steel Company (collectively, the ``domestic interested parties''), the domestic participants in this review, and on behalf of Acindar, the respondent in this review. On July 15, 1999, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(d), the Department received rebuttal comments from the domestic interested parties. We have addressed the comment received below.

Comment

Comment 1: Acindar, in its July 12, 1999, case brief, states that they disagree with the Department's Preliminary Results in this sunset proceeding. Acindar argues that the 119.11 percent dumping margin to be reported to the Commission by the Department is not representative of the rate likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Acindar asserts that in a situation where the rate determined in the original investigation is not a rate based on a respondent's own data, as exists in this case, that rate should not be reported by Department. Furthermore, Acindar argues that the only administrative review conducted by the Department in which Acindar's own data was used resulted in a dumping margin of zero.

In addition, Acindar argues that this fifteen year old rate does not reflect the significant changes which have taken place in the industry and market for subject merchandise since the imposition of the order. According to Acindar, the intervention of numerous events-- Mercosur, NAFTA, the changes in the Argentine currency, and the substantial changes in the wire rod industry in the United States and worldwide--all greatly weaken any inference that the rate of dumping ``likely to recur'' is the rate hypothesized for Acindar in the early 1980's.

The domestic interested parties, in their July 12, 1999, case brief, stated that they agree with the Department's Preliminary Results in this proceeding. With respect to Acindar's assertion, the domestic interested parties, citing the SAA in their July 15, 1999, rebuttal brief, state that the dumping margin from the original investigation is the only rate that properly reflects the behavior of exporters prior to the issuance of the antidumping duty order. According to the domestic interested parties, Acindar's request that the Department select another rate to report to the Commission is in direct contradiction to the SAA. They argue that the rate from the original investigation is the most appropriate to report to the Commission. Lastly, the domestic interested parties argue that the age of margin the Department reports to the Commission is irrelevant and that the rate from the original investigation, regardless of how long ago the order was created, is most probative of the rate likely to prevail because it is the only rate which reflects the behavior of producers and/or exporters absent the discipline of the order.

Department Position: The Department agrees with the domestic interested parties. The Department's Sunset Regulations state that we will normally provide the company-specific margin from the investigation for each company regardless of whether the margin was calculated using a company's own information or based on best information available or facts available. As stated in our Preliminary Results, the rate assigned to Acindar in the original investigation is the only one which reflects its behavior absent the discipline of the order and therefore is the most appropriate to report to the Commission as the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. The Department finds no reason to deviate from its stated policy in this proceeding.

As for the zero dumping margin attained by Acindar in the sole administrative review of this order, the Department does not find this rate probative of the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. In its Preliminary Results, the Department noted that the establishment of this zero dumping margin was preceded by a significant reduction in import volumes of the subject merchandise. Furthermore, throughout the life of the order, import volumes have remained substantially below their pre-imposition of the order levels. This strongly suggests to the Department that Acindar had to dramatically reduce its exports of subject merchandise to the United States in order to eliminate dumping and would be unable to sell significant quantities (e.g. pre-imposition quantities) of subject merchandise in the United States and maintain a dumping margin of zero. Furthermore, the Department notes that a zero or de minimis dumping margin, in itself, does not require the Department to determine that continuation or recurrence of dumping is not likely nor does it indicate to the Department that a zero or de minimis margin is the margin likely to prevail if the order were to be revoked. See section 772(c)(4)(A) of the Act.

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. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in our preliminary results of review and as discussed above, we find that the margins calculated in the original investigation are probative of the behavior of Argentine producers/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)

Acindar...................................................... 119.11 All Others................................................... 119.11

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

[Page 53323]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: September 27, 1999. Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

FR Doc. 99-25626Filed9-30-99; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

---