Antidumping: Steel wire strand from— Japan,

[Federal Register: January 6, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 3)]

[Notices]

[Page 857-860]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr06ja99-39]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-068]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review: Steel Wire Strand from Japan

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

ACTION: Notice of final results of expedited sunset review: steel wire strand from Japan.

SUMMARY: On September 1, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on steel wire strand from Japan (63 FR 46410) 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 substantive comments filedon behalf of the domestic industry 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 finding would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of the 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: January 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 finding is steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which are stress- relieved and suitable for use in prestressed concrete. Such merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 7312.10.30.12. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

This review covers imports from all manufacturers and exporters of steel wire strand from Japan, other than imports produced by Sumitomo Electric Ind., Ltd. and exported by the Sumitomo Corp., for which the finding has been revoked (51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986), and imports produced by Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire (formerly known as Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Ltd.), for which the investigation was discontinued (43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978).

Background

On September 1, 1998, the Department initiated a sunset review of the antidumping finding on steel wire strand from Japan (63 FR 46410), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of the American Spring Wire Corp., Florida Wire & Cable, Inc., Insteel Wire Products and Sumiden Wire Products Corp. (collectively ``the domestic industry'') on September 16, 1998,

[[Page 858]]

within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset Regulations. Each company claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a U.S. manufacturer of a domestic like product. In addition, American Spring Wire Corp and Florida Wire & Cable indicated that they were two of the original five petitioners and that the three other original petitioners are no longer producers of the subject merchandise. We received a complete substantive response from the domestic industry on October 1, 1998, within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). 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 finding.

Determination

In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department conducted this review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping finding 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 finding, and shall provide to the International Trade Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the finding is revoked.

The Department's determinations concerning continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin are discussed below. In addition, 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.3). 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).

The antidumping finding on steel wire strand from Japan was published in the Federal Register as Treasury Decision 78-487 (43 FR 57599, December 8, 1978). Prior to this finding, on August 28, 1978, Treasury discontinued the dumping investigation with respect to imports from Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Ltd. (43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978). Since the Treasury finding, the Department has conducted several administrative reviews.‹SUP›1‹/SUP› On August 29, 1986, the Department revoked the finding with respect to imports produced by Sumitomo Electric Ind., Ltd. and exported by the Sumitomo Corp. (51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986). On March 5, 1990, the Department issued the final results of a changed circumstances review, determining that Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire was the successor to Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Ltd. and, therefore, that the discontinuance issued to Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Ltd. applied to Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire (55 FR 7759, March 5, 1990). The finding remains in effect for all other manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise.

\1\ See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 48 FR 45586 (October 6, 1983); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 51 FR 30894 (August 29, 1986); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 4373 (February 11, 1987); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 37997 (October 13, 1987); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 9787 (March 25, 1988); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 11162 (April 5, 1988); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 55 FR 28796 (July 13, 1990); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 55 FR 46853 (November 7, 1990); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 56 FR 66840 (December 26, 1991); and Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 62 FR 60688 (November 12, 1997).

In its substantive response, the domestic industry argued that the actions taken by producers and exporters of Japanese steel wire strand during the life of the finding indicate that ``(w)ere the finding to be revoked, it is likely that dumping would continue because the evidence demonstrates that the Japanese producers and exporters need to dump to sell in any significant quantities in the United States' (see October 1, 1998, Substantive Response of the Domestic Industry). With respect to whether dumping continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the finding, the domestic industry stated that, as documented in the final results of administrative reviews issued by the Department, a ``review of the behavior of Japanese producers following the imposition of the antidumping finding shows continued dumping by at least one producer, Tokyo Rope Manufacturing, at a rate of 4.5 percent following imposition of the order'' (see October 1, 1998, Substantive Response of the Domestic Industry).

With respect to whether imports of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the finding, the domestic industry, citing U.S. Department of Commerce reports and U.S. Census statistics for U.S. imports (IM146 reports), asserted that ``imports of PC Strand from Japan have fallen to insignificant commercial volumes'' since the imposition of the finding.‹SUP›2‹/SUP› Furthermore, the domestic industry argued that decreasing import volumes together with the existence of an antidumping duty finding strongly supports the conclusion that dumping would continue if the finding were revoked and demonstrates that Japanese manufacturers of steel wire strand cannot sell in the United States without dumping.

\2\ The domestic industry provided information on U.S. imports of steel wire strand for prestressed concrete from Japan, on an annual basis, in short tons, from 1975 through 1998. The 1998 data was annualized based on data from January through July, 1998.

In conclusion, the domestic industry argued that the Department should determine that there is a likelihood that dumping would continue were the finding revoked because (1) dumping margins have existed throughout the life of the finding, and (2) most companies

[[Page 859]]

have dramatically reduced exports or ceased exports of the subject merchandise altogether.

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. A dumping margin above de minimis continues to exist for shipments of the subject merchandise from the Tokyo Wire Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd.‹SUP›3‹/SUP›

\3\ See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 4373 (February 11, 1987), as corrected by Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Correction; 52 FR 37997 (October 13, 1987).

Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also considered the volume of imports before and after issuance of the finding. The import statistics provided by the domestic industry on imports of the subject merchandise between 1975 and 1998, and confirmed through the Department's examination of U.S. Census data (IM146 reports), demonstrate that in the two years following the imposition of the finding, imports of the subject merchandise fell by approximately 50,000 short tons (from approximately 80,000 in 1978 to approximately 30,000 short tons in 1980). Since that period, imports of subject merchandise have decreased every year, with few exceptions. The statistics demonstrate that imports of steel wire strand from Japan have not been above 1000 short tons per year since 1990. This is consistent with the Department's findings of no shipments by the reviewed companies in many of the administrative reviews conducted by the Department.‹SUP›4‹/SUP›

\4\ See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 48 FR 45586 (October 6, 1983); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation in Part; 51 FR 30894 (August 29, 1986); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 4373 (February 11, 1987); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 52 FR 37997 (October 13, 1987); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 9787 (March 25, 1988); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 53 FR 11162 (April 5, 1988); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 55 FR 28796 (July 13, 1990); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 55 FR 46853 (November 7, 1990); Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 56 FR 66840 (December 26, 1991); and Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan; Notice of Final Court Decision and Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 62 FR 60688 (November 12, 1997).

Based on this analysis, the Department finds that the existence of dumping margins after the issuance of the finding is highly probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate above a de minimis level continues in effect for exports of the subject merchandise by at least one known Japanese manufacturer/ exporter. Therefore, given that dumping has continued over the life of the finding, and absent argument and evidence to the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is likely to continue if the finding 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.)

Treasury, in its final determination of sales at less than fair value, published weighted-average dumping margins for five Japanese manufacturers and exporters of steel wire strand (43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978). Of these five manufacturers, Treasury discontinued the investigation for one because of de minimis margins (Kawatetsu, 43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978) and the Department subsequently revoked the order with respect to another (Sumitomo, 51 FR 30894, August 29, 1986). Treasury did not publish an ``all others'' rate in its determination. The Department indicated in the Sunset Policy Bulletin that, under these circumstances, the Department normally will provide to the Commission, as the margin for any new company not reviewed by Treasury, the first ``new shipper'' rate established by the Department for that finding (see section II.B.1). We note, that, to date, the Department has not issued any duty absorption findings in this case.

In its substantive response, the domestic industry recommended that, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department provide to the Commission the company-specific margins included in the Treasury determination published in the Federal Register. Further, the domestic industry stated that the Department should inform the Commission of the two companies for which this finding has been revoked, Kawasaki Steel Techno Wire and Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.

As for companies not reviewed in the original investigation, the domestic industry argued that the Department assign these companies a rate of 15.8 percent, the highest company-specific rate identified by Treasury in its determination. Citing the September 29, 1982, Federal Register notice Clear Sheet Glass from Taiwan: Final Results of Administrative Review of Antidumping Finding, 47 FR 42769, the domestic industry stated that the Department should follow its practice of automatically assigning the highest rate for any of the investigated companies as the ``all others.'' Therefore, the all others rate should be the 15.8 percent calculated by Treasury for Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. and published on August 28, 1978 (43 FR 38495, August 28, 1978). Alternatively, the domestic industry argued that, should the Department believe it should rely on its more recent practice of deriving the ``all others rate,'' the Department should use the weighted-average dumping margin from the original investigation as identified in the Commission's final injury determination of November 29, 1978. In its final determination, the Commission stated that ``[t]he weighted average dumping margin for all the sales compared was 9.76 percent''.‹SUP›5‹/SUP›

\5\ See Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, Inv. No. AA1921-188, USITC Pub. 928 at 4 (Nov. 1978) or Steel Wire Strand for Prestressed Concrete from Japan, 43 FR 55826, November 29, 1978.

The Department agrees with the domestic industry's assertion that it should report to the Commission the company-specific margins published in the original Treasury final determination. The Department noted, in the Sunset Policy Bulletin, that the margins from the original investigation are the only calculated rates that reflect the behavior of exporters without the discipline of the order in place. Therefore, the Department finds these rates are the most probative of the behavior of these companies if the finding were revoked absent

[[Page 860]]

information and argument to the contrary.

The Department agrees with the domestic industry, in part, concerning the choice of the ``all others'' rate. We have no basis for applying the Department's early all others rate policy to the Treasury investigation. In fact, the Department itself abandoned the practice of applying the highest rate for responding firms as the all others rate. Currently, the all others rate is the weighted-average of the individual dumping margins calculated for those exporters and producers that are individually investigated. Therefore, we agree with the domestic industry that the weighted-average dumping margin for all sales of the subject merchandise, as calculated by Treasury and published by the Commission in its final injury determination for this proceeding, is an appropriate measure of the first ``all others'' rate. Thus, the Department will report to the Commission the company-specific and all others rates from the original investigation as 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 finding would likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

Manufacturer/exporter

Margin (percent)

Kawasaki Steel Techno-Wire Co, Ltd........ Investigation (formerly Kawatetsu Wire Products Co., Discontinued Ltd.). Shinko Wire Co., Ltd...................... 13.3 Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd. (and Revoked exported by Sumitomo Corp.). Suzuki Metal Industry Co., Ltd............ 6.9 Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd......... 4.5 All Others................................ 9.76

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: December 30, 1998. Richard W. Moreland, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 99-247Filed1-5-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P