APPENDIX A
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

A-l


In 2003, total U.S. imports of barbed wire were 18,493 short tons. Mexico and Brazil accounted
for the vast majority of such imports. Other countries accounting for the balance of U.S. imports, in
descending order of magnitude, include South Africa, Germany, India, Canada, Australia, the Czech
Republic, China, France, Honduras, Poland, Japan, Chile, and Peru.

Apparent U.S. Consumption

Table I-5 presents information on U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, apparent
U.S. consumption, and market shares of barbed wire and barbless wire strand during 1982-84, 1997, and
2003. Apparent U.S. consumption of barbed wire and barbless wire strand in 1997, although slightly
higher than in 1984, was lower than in 1982-83. U.S. producers accounted for a higher share of
consumption in 1997 than in any year during the original investigation.

Table I-5
Barbed wire and barbless wire strand: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources,
apparent U.S. consumption, and market shares, 1982-84, 1997, and 2003

Item 1982 1983 1984 1997 2003
Quantity (short tons)
U.S. producers’ domestic shipments' 76,153 80,710 65,457 77,200 76,564

U.S. imports? from:

Argentina 506 3,814 3,739 0 ie)
All other sources 17,959 25,458 24,560 16,601 18,493
Total imports 18,465 29,272 28,299 16,601 18,493
Apparent U.S. consumption 94,618 109,982 93,756 93,801 95,057

Share of U.S. consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ domestic shipments! 80.5 73.4 69.8 82.3 80.5

U.S. imports? from:

Argentina 0.5 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.0
All other sources 19.0 23.1 26.2 17.7 19.5
Total imports 19.5 26.6 30.2 17.7 19.5

‘U.S. producers’ domestic shipments for 1997 and 2003 were estimated by the Commission staff using data provided in the
U.S. producers’ response to the Commission’s notices of institution in the first and second review, respectively.

? The HTS classification for barbed wire and barbless wire strand also includes “twisted hoop or single flat wire.” There are no
data reflecting what share these products may account for of the total basket classification, but such imports, if any, are
believed to be minimal.

Source: Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. |-12 for 1982-84 and 1997 data (from which import data were official Commerce
Statistics). 2003 import data are from official Commerce statistics, while 2003 U.S. producers’ shipments are estimated by
Commission staff from the U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 6 of attachments A, B, and C.

In 2003, apparent U.S. consumption of barbed wire and barbless wire strand was only slightly
higher than apparent U.S. consumption in 1997. As previously noted, since 1997, there have been no

“ Official statistics of Commerce (http://dataweb.usitc. govv/scrip/REPORT.asp).
19


Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 137/Monday, July 19, 2004/Notices

43013

Dated: June 20, 2004,
Donna E. Tegelman,

Regional Resources Manager, Mid-Pacific
Region, Bureau of Reclamation.

[FR Doc. 04~16348 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P-

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management Work Group (AMWG),
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Adaptive Management
Program (AMP) was implemented as a
result of the Record of Decision on the
Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final
Environmental Impact Statement to
comply with consultation requirements
of the Grand Canyon Protection Act
(Pub. L. 102-575) of 1992. The AMP
includes a federal advisory committee
(AMWG), a technical work group
(TWG), a monitoring and research
center, and independent review panels.
The AMWG makes recommendations to
the Secretary of the Interior concerning
Glen Canyon Dam operations and other
management actions to protect resources
downstream of Glen Canyon Dam
consistent with the Grand Canyon
Protection Act. The TWG is a
subcommittee of the AMWG and
provides technical advice and
recommendations to the AMWG.
DATES: The AMWG will conduct the
following public meeting:

Phoenix, Arizona—August 9-11,
2004, The meeting will begin at 10 a.m.
and conclude at 5 p.m. on August 9,
2004, begin at 8 a.m. and conclude at 5
p-m. on August 10, 2004, and begin at
8 a.m. and conclude at 3 p.m. on August
11, 2004. The meeting will be held at
the Hyatt Regency Phoenix, 122 N. 2nd
Street, Phoenix, Arizona.

Agenda: The purpose of the meeting
will be to discuss results of the recent
AMWG retreat, develop and prioritize
resource questions and 2006 budget
guidance, and discuss updates on the
GCMRC Strategic Plan, Core Monitoring
Plan, Long Term Experimental Plan,
Humpback Chub Comprehensive Plan,
FY04 deferred projects, environmental
compliance progress on proposed
actions, research and monitoring
reports, basin hydrology, public
outreach, as well as other administrative
and resource issues pertaining to the

Time will be allowed for any
individual or organization wishing to

make formal oral comments (limited to
5 minutes) at the meeting. To allow full
consideration of information by the
AMWG members, written notice must
be provided to Dennis Kubly, Bureau of
Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional
Office, 125 South State Street, Room
6107, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84138;
telephone (801) 524-3715; faxogram
(801) 524-3858; e-mail at
dkubly@uc.usbr.gov at least five (5) days
prior to the meeting. Any written
comments received will be provided to
the AMWG and TWG members.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Kubly, telephone (801) 524—
3715; faxogram (801) 524-3858; or via e-
mail at dkubly@uc.usbr.gov.

Dated: July 1, 2004.
Randall V. Peterson,
Manager, Environmental Resources Division,
Upper Colorado Regional Office.
[FR Doc, 04-16347 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-208 (Second
Review)]}

Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand
From Argentina

AGENCY: United States International
Trade Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited five-
year review concerning the antidumping
duty order on barbed wire and barbless
wire strand from Argentina.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice of the scheduling of an expedited
review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine
whether revocation of the antidumping
duty order on barbed wire and barbless
wire strand from Argentina would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury within a
reasonably foreseeable time. For further
information concerning the conduct of
this review and rules of general
application, consult the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure, part
201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part
201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and
F (19 CFR part 207).

DATES: Effective Date: July 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Jacobs (202-205-2383),
Office of Investigations, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436.
Hearing-impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202—
205-1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server (http://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this review may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background.—On July 6, 2004, the
Commission determined that the
domestic interested party group
response to its notice of institution (69
FR 17226, April 1, 2004) of the subject
five-year review was adequate and that
the respondent interested party group
response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any other
circumstances that would warrant
conducting a full review.1 Accordingly,
the Commission determined that it
would conduct an expedited review
pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.2
Staff report.—A staff report
containing information concerning the
subject matter of the review will be
placed in the nonpublic record on
August 2, 2004, and made available to
persons on the Administrative
Protective Order service list for this
review. A public version will be issued
thereafter, pursuant to section
207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules.
Written submissions.—As provided in
section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s
rules, interested parties that are parties
to the review and that have provided
individually adequate responses to the
notice of institution,? and any party
other than an interested party to the
review may file written comments with
the Secretary on what determination the
Commission should reach in the review.
Comments are due on or before August
5, 2004, and may not contain new
factual information. Any person that is
neither a party to the five-year review
nor an interested party may submit a
brief written statement (which shall not
contain any new factual information)
pertinent to the review by August 5,
2004. However, should the Department

TA record of the Commissioners’ votes, the
Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any
individual Commissioner's statement will be
available from the Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission's Web sito,

2Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Daniel R.
Pearson dissenting.

3 The Commission has found the responses
submitted by Davis Wire Corp., Keystone Steel and
Wire Co., and Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc.,
to be individually adequate. Comments from other
interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR
207.62(d}(2)).


B. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if the order is
revoked, the statute directs the Commission to evaluate all relevant economic factors “within the context
of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”** In
performing our analysis under the statute, we have taken into account the following conditions of
competition in the U.S. market for barbed wire and barbless wire strand.

At the time of the original investigation, there were nine firms producing barbed wire and
barbless wire strand in the United States: Bekaert Steel & Wire Co.; CF&I; Continental Steel Corp.;
Davis; Forbes; Keystone; Nagle Wire Corp. of Colorado; Northwestern Steel & Wire Co.; and Oklahoma
S&W. However, the U.S. barbed wire industry has undergone numerous changes since the original
investigation; several firms have exited the industry or were acquired by other firms. Currently, there are
six known and operating U.S. producers of the domestic like product. Four of the U.S. producers, Davis,
Keystone, Oklahoma S&W, and Bekaert, were in operation at the time of the original investigation. The
two other firms, Burly and Midwest, entered the market after the original investigation.” On February
26, 2004, Keystone and its affiliated companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.*

Apparent U.S. consumption of barbed wire has not grown significantly in the years since the
original determination. In 2003, apparent U.S. consumption was only slightly higher than apparent U.S.
consumption in 1984 and 1997. According to the domestic producers, despite the availability of other
alternative fencing products (e.g., field fence, electric fence, and high-tensile smooth wire fencing),
demand for barbed wire has improved recently, reportedly because of the general economic recovery and
the increased use of barbed wire for security purposes.” In 2003, the U.S. industry’s production levels
were higher than in 1984 - the last full year examined in the original investigation - but lower than
production levels in 1997." The U.S. industry’s market share in 2003 was higher than in 1984 but lower
than in 1997. Nonsubject import market share in 2003 was lower than in 1984 but slightly higher than

5 (.. continued)
the record on price sensitivity, production levels of the U.S. industry, export markets, and apparent U.S.
consumption.

36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

57 Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. (“Northwestern”) is a former barbed wire producer which exited the fabricated
wire products business, including barbed wire, in October 1998. It subsequently filed for bankruptcy in December
2000. We note that Northwestern’s exit from the U.S. barbed wire industry occurred prior to the Commission’s vote
in the first five-year review. However, the data collected in the first five-year review was with respect to the year
1997, and thus did not reflect the fact that Northwestern had ceased barbed wire production. CR at I-8 to 1-9; PR at
1-6.

5* CR at I-8 to 1-9 & n.33; PR at 1-6 & n.33.

3° CR/PR at Table I-5; CR at I-12; PR at I-9. Total apparent U.S. consumption in 2003 was 95,057 short tons,
compared with 93,801 short tons in 1997. In the original investigation, apparent U.S. consumption was 94,618 short
tons in 1982, 109,982 short tons in 1983, and 93,756 short tons in 1984. CR at I-11; PR at I-9; CR/PR at Table I-5.

4° CR at I-7; PR at I-5.

| CR/PR at Table I-3. The U.S. produced 78,298 short tons in 2003 compared with 71,609 short tons in 1982,
78,276 short tons in 1983, 62,996 short tons in 1984, and 82,000 short tons in 1997. Id.

# CR/PR at Table I-5. The U.S. industry’s market share was 80.5 percent in 2003 compared with 80.5 percent in
1982, 73.4 percent in 1983, 69.8 percent in 1984, and 82.3 percent in 1997. Id.

8




not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any degree of ‘certainty,’” but it has indicated that the Court views
“likely” to equal a standard of “more likely than not.” Usinor Industeel II, Slip. Op. 02-152 at 6 n.6.'°

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping order on barbed
wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. While it may be
possible that revocation of the order could lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury, a
standard that the Commission has never applied under any interpretation of “likely,” revocation of the
order is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable
time.

D. Conditions of Competition

In evaluating the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry if the order is revoked, the
statute directs the Commission to evaluate all the relevant economic factors “within the context of the
business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”!’ The
conditions of competition that inform our determination that revocation of the order is not likely to lead
to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic barbed wire industry within a reasonably
foreseeable time follow.

Domestic interested parties describe barbed wire and barbless wire strand as price-sensitive
products. In addition, they assert that raw material costs (primarily steel wire rod) and energy costs are

5 (continued)
result of the inherently predictive nature of the inquiry, the SAA explains that “[t]here may be more than one likely
outcome following revocation.” SAA at 883 (emphasis added). Thus, the Commission stated that reading the term
“likely” in conjunction with the SAA led it to conclude that “likely” captures a concept that falls in between
“probable” and “possible” on a continuum of relative certainty.

Vice Chairman Hillman stated her separate view that “likely” means “more likely than not,” which is the
standard she understood the Court to prescribe when it used the term “probable.” Separate Views of Vice Chairman
Jennifer A. Hillman Regarding The Interpretation of the Term “Likely” at 2. Commissioner Koplan, in dissent,
found no error in the Court’s construction of the term. Dissenting Views of Commissioner Stephen Koplan
Regarding the Interpretation of the Term “Likely” at 1 (“were I to select a synonym for ‘likely,’ I would accept the
Court’s conclusion that ‘likely’ is best equated with ‘probable’”).

‘4 Tn reviewing the Commission’s remand determination in Usinor Industeel, the Court rejected the Commission’s
interpretation that “likely” captures a concept that falls in between “probable” and “possible” on a continuum of
relative certainty. Usinor Industeel III, Slip. Op. 02-152 at 5-6. (The Court, however, did not remand the matter to
the Commission on those grounds, as the Commission explicitly adopted the Court’s definition of “likely” for
purposes of making that remand determination. Usinor Industeel III, Slip. Op. 02-152 at 4.) (Subsequent to Usinor
Industeel III, Commissioners Hillman, Koplan, and Miller explicitly stated they were applying the court’s definition
of “likely” per Usinor Industeel, Usinor, and Nippon. Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, Inv. No. 731-
TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 13 n.60 (Feb. 2003).

18 While Vice Chairman Okun does not concur with the Court’s interpretation, she will apply the Court’s
standard in this review and all subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit addresses this issue. Further, Vice Chairman Okun notes that the Court’s standard
means that the Commission must revoke an order unless the continuation or recurrence of material injury is “more
likely than not.” While this standard may not equate to a high level of certainty, there may be reviews in which there
could be “more than one likely outcome,” but the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury is not more likely
than any other outcome. SAA at 883.

‘© While, for purposes of this review, Commissioner Pearson does not take a position on the correct interpretation
of “likely,” he notes that he would have made a negative determination under any interpretation of “likely” other than
that equating “likely” with merely “possible.”

19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

18




CONTENTS

Determination
Views of the Commision .

Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson «

Information obtained in the second review
Introduction
Background .

The original investigation and first five-year 1 teview

Commerce’s final results of expedited sunset review

Distribution of continued dumping and subsidy offset funds to affected domestic producers

The product
Scope ...
Description
Uses .......-
Production process .

The industry in the United States
USS. producers ........ 0.0. c cece eee cence
U.S. capacity, production, shipments, and employment .

U.S. imports and consumption . .
USS. imports ...........-
Apparent U.S. consumption

Appendices

A. Federal Register notices

Related investigations .... 2.00... cece cee e eee ee eee

The industry in Argentina .... 0.0.6... 6 cece ence teen een eens

B. Statement on adequacy ....... 6... c ccc cece nee teen nee e eens

15
Ll
El
Ll
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
18
19

Note.--Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by
asterisks.


U.S. Capacity, Production, Shipments, and Employment

Three producers responded in a timely manner to the Commission’s notice of institution in this
review: Davis, Keystone, and Oklahoma S&W. These three firms reportedly accounted for an estimated
*** of U.S. barbed wire and barbless wire strand production in 2003.TM Information on the U.S. industry
is therefore based on the data from these three firms. Information on the domestic industry’s capacity,
production, shipments, and employment during 1982-84, 1997, and 2003 is presented in table I-3.

Table I-3
Barbed wire and barbless wire strand: U.S. producers’ capacity, production, shipments, and employment,
1982-84, 1997, and 2003'

Item 1982 1983 1984 1997? 20037

Capacity (short tons) 171,310 179,536 171,293 ° ®
Production (short tons) 71,609 78,276 62,996 82,000 78,298
Capacity utilization (percent) 41.8 43.6 36.8 ® °
U.S. shipments:

Quantity (short tons) 76,153 80,710 65,457 77,200 76,564

Value ($1,000) ° ® ® 56,600 52,246

Unit value (dollars per short ton) 0 o o 733 682
Production and related workers 183 194 168 153 °

* Data for 1982-1984 are based on the staff report of October 11, 1985. Data for 1997 are based on the staff report of April 2,
1999. Data for 2003 are based on the U.S. producers’ May 21, 2004 response to the Commission's notice of institution in this
second five-year review.

? Data for 1997 were estimated by the Commission's staff by applying *** percent coverage ratio to the data reported by the
three firms. Data for 2003 were estimated by the Commission's staff by applying *** percent coverage ratio to the data reported
by the three firms. (See Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. 1-8, footnote 22 and U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 6 of attachments A,
B, and C.)

® Not available.

“The average selling price of barbed wire reported by domestic producers was $662 per short ton in 1982, $645 per short ton
in 1983, and $639 per short ton in 1984. Staff Report of October 11, 1985, p. A-23.

Source: Compiled from data presented in the staff reports in the original investigation, the first five-year review, and the U.S.
producers’ May 21, 2004 response to the Commission's notice of institution in this second five-year review.

33 (.. continued)
agreement was reached by both sides. Revisions to the agreement must be approved by ISA members and by a
federal bankruptcy court before they become official. Information on the bankruptcy filing by Keystone was
compiled from the following sources: “Keystone Steel schedules production shutdown” in AMM.com - Steel News -
March 25, 2003; “Keystone looks to amend pact, warns of woes” in AMM.com - Steel News - Oct. 24, 2003;
“Keystone labor ratification vote set for Jan. 20" in AMM.com - Steel News - Jan. 8, 2004; “Yoked by pact,
Keystone files for Chapter 11" in AMM.com - Steel News - Feb. 27, 2004; “Keystone Steel, union take third trip to
table” in AMM.com - Steel News - June 25, 2004; “Keystone reaches agreement” in pjstar.com - Peoria Journal Star
- July 17, 2004.

U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 6 of attachments A, B, and C. Firms reported a range of shares of production of
the domestic like product for the calendar year 2003 as follows: Davis produced *** short tons which was ***
percent of U.S. production, Keystone produced *** short tons which was *** percent of U.S. production, and
Oklahoma S&W. produced *** short tons which was *** percent of U.S. production.

17


DISSENTING VIEWS OF VICE CHAIRMAN DEANNA TANNER OKUN AND
COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

Section 751(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires that the U.S.
Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) revoke a countervailing duty or an antidumping duty order in a
five-year (“sunset”) review unless Commerce determines that dumping or a countervailable subsidy
would be likely to continue or recur and the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”)
determines that material injury to a U.S. industry would be likely to continue or recur within a reasonably
foreseeable time.’ Based on the record in this second five-year review, we determine that material injury
is not likely to continue or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping order on barbed
wire and barbless wire strand (“barbed wire”) from Argentina is revoked.

We join our colleagues’ discussion regarding domestic like product and domestic industry. We
write separately to discuss the legal standard governing sunset reviews, conditions of competition, and to
provide our analysis of the statutory factors.

IL REVOCATION OF THE ANTIDUMPING ORDER ON BARBED WIRE AND
BARBLESS WIRE STRAND IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO CONTINUATION OR
RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY WITHIN A REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
TIME

A. Legal Standard

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke a
countervailing or antidumping duty order or terminate a suspended investigation unless: (1) it makes a
determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur, and (2) the Commission makes a determination
that revocation of an order or termination of a suspended investigation “would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”” The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a
counter-factual analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an
important change in the status quo — the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of
its restraining effects on volumes and prices of imports.” Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in
nature.* The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or
termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.’
According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will

295

"19 U.S.C. § 1675(d)(2).

? 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

3 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol. I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury standard
applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of material injury,
or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations that were never
completed.” SAA at 883.

* While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it
indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed
shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in
making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.”
SAA at 884.

519 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

15


sufficient to gain a 4-percent market share would not be significant. Moreover, given the substantial
market share held by nonsubject imports, it is likely that increased exports from Argentina would
displace nonsubject imports as well as U.S. production. Finally, there is record evidence that tends to
refute the assumption that Acindar would likely increase its exports to the United States to pre-order
levels in the event of revocation, as in recent years it has exported minimal amounts of barbed wire to
any destination, even to tariff-free destinations within Mercosur. To the extent that Acindar should
decide to export its barbed wire production, it is more likely that it would do so in tariff-free markets
closer to home where transportation costs are lower.

Therefore, we find that revocation of the antidumping order is not likely to lead to an increase in
the volume of subject imports such that the likely volume of subject imports would be significant.

F. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping order is revoked, the
Commission considers whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as
compared to domestic like product, and if the subject imports are likely to enter the United States at
prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic
like products.**

In performing our analysis, we have taken into account the Commission’s previous price
findings. In the original determination, the Commission found that barbed wire is a commodity product
where small changes in price may have significant effects on volumes.*° The Commission did not collect
specific pricing data in this expedited review, nor did parties provide such data. In the original
investigation, however, the Commission found that subject imports from Argentina showed significant
margins of underselling during the period 1982-84.°”7 Consequently, the Commission found that imports
depressed domestic prices.

No current pricing data are available on the record in this review. Hence, we have no
information that would enable us to evaluate whether subject imports, in the event of revocation of the
order, would be likely to enter the United States at prices that would undersell the domestic like product.
We acknowledge Commerce’s determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the
antidumping order is revoked as well as the commodity nature of barbed wire.** Our conclusions,
however, regarding the likely price effects if the antidumping order is revoked, are drawn largely from
our conclusions on likely subject volumes. As discussed in our volume analysis, subject imports are not
likely to increase significantly if the antidumping order is revoked, even if subject imports return to pre-
order levels. Consequently, we find that revocation of the antidumping order would not likely lead to
significant underselling by the subject imports as compared to the domestic like product, or to significant
price depression or suppression within a reasonably foreseeable time.” Therefore, we find that
revocation of the order is not likely to lead to any significant price effects.

* 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(3).
36 USITC Publ. 3187 at 7, n.37 (Views of the Commission).

>” Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina, Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Final), USITC Pub. 1770 (Oct.
1985), at 8-9.

+ 69 Fed. Reg. 47,404 (Aug. 5, 2004). We note, however, that the level of dumping margins, per se, tells us
nothing about whether there is likely to be significant price underselling by subject imports or whether subject
imports are likely to be sold at prices that depress or suppress U.S. prices for barbed wire.

® The record contains no current information on other price-related factors such as the channels of distribution
used; the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts); and lead times for delivery of goods;
discounts; and payment terms.

21


affords interested parties the opportunity to provide information that is relevant to this review. In this
review, very little information was provided by interested parties that would inform the Commission’s
determination. In particular, with regard to the statutory factors the Commission is directed to consider
under 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2), we lack information on the Argentine industry’s capacity to produce
barbed wire, its capacity utilization, its existing inventories of subject merchandise, and whether there is
any potential for product shifting in the event of revocation of the order. Similarly, with regard to the
statutory factors the Commission is directed to consider under 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3) and (4), we lack
information on current price levels in the domestic barbed wire market, along with information on the
domestic barbed wire industry’s capacity, capacity utilization, and current financial condition. In
reviews of “old” orders such as this one, updated data are particularly vital, given that with the passage of
time, it is likely that significant changes would have occurred in both the structure of the domestic
industry and the world market for the product in question.

We recognize that in expedited reviews, the Commission generally is faced with more limited
data on the record than in a full review, but limited data do not relieve the Commission of its statutory
obligation to examine the record evidence in support of its finding. In this review, we evaluate the
impact of removing an order that is nearly two decades old. In those two decades, many significant
events affecting the global market for steel products have occurred, including the creation of the Latin
American common market, Mercosur, the unprecedented rise in basic steel prices since 2001, and the
acquisition of Acindar (the sole Argentine exporter of barbed wire) by the international steel
conglomerate Arcelor of Luxembourg. Consequently, we must examine the limited record in this review
in the context of these events.

[on The “Likely” Standard

As noted above, the legal standard the Commission is to apply is whether revocation of an order
“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable
time.”"' In reviewing the Commission’s application of the “likely” standard, the U.S. Court of
International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review provisions of the Act, means
“probable,” and that a Commission affirmative determination in such a review would be deemed by the
Court to be in error absent application of this standard.”

Pursuant to the Usinor Industeel and Usinor remand orders, the Commission issued remand
determinations that applied the “probable” standard.’ ‘* Subsequently, the Court has stated that it “has

"19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

" See NMB Singapore Ltd. V. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (2003) (““‘likely’ means probable
within the context of 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675(c)) and 1675a(a)”); Nippon Steel Corp., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-
153 at 7-8 (Dec. 24, 2002) (same) (Nippon); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-152 at 6 n.6 (Dec.
20, 2002) (“the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”) (Usinor Industeel III);
and Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44 (July 19, 2002) (““‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not
merely ‘possible””) (Usinor).

® Tn its remand determination in Usinor Industeel (Certain Carbon Steel Products from Australia, Belgium.
Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain.
Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Views on Remand), Invs. Nos. AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231,
319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350 (Review), and 73 1-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612,
and 614-618 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3526 (July 2002) at 6), the Commission (Chairman Okun and
Commissioners Bragg and Miller) stated that the Commission, in rendering its initial determination in those reviews,
did not equate “likely” with “probable” or “possible” for purposes of its determination of whether material injury
was likely to recur. The Commission stated its view of the meaning of the word “likely” is found in the statutory
language itself and the relevant explication of that text found in the SAA. The Commission noted that the SAA.
explains that a determination by the Commission in a five-year review “is inherently predictive.” SAA at 883. Asa

(continued...)

17


U.S. IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION
U.S. Imports

Table I-4 presents information on U.S. imports of barbed wire and barbless wire strand from
Argentina during 1982-84, 1997, and 2003. Imports of barbed wire and barbless wire strand from
Argentina increased from 1982 to 1983, and then decreased slightly in 1984. Subsequent to the initiation
of the antidumping investigation, such imports decreased in the January-March 1985 period, amounting
to only 39 percent of the quantity of imports from Argentina during the comparable period of 1984.>
Commerce published its preliminary determination of dumping in May 1985,” and imports of barbed
wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina quickly declined.*’ Although there were imports of barbed
wire and barbless wire strand after the completion of the antidumping investigation, they were minimal
compared with imports prior to the determination of dumping. In 1986, there were 9 short tons of barbed
wire (and no barbless wire strand) imported from Argentina. In 1987, there were 19 short tons of
barbless wire strand (and no barbed wire) imported from Argentina.* Since then, there have been no
U.S. imports of barbed wire or barbless wire strand from Argentina.”

Devt wire and barbless wire strand: U.S. imports, by source, 1982-84, 1997, and 2003
Source 1982 1983 1984 1997 2003
Quantity (short tons)
Argentina 506 3,814 3,739 0 0
Value (1,000 dollars)
Argentina (/anded, duty paid) 337 . 1,753 1,766 0 0
Argentina (customs value) 294 1,461 1,477 0 0
Unit value (per short ton)
Argentina (/anded, duty paid) $666 $460 $472 ° °
Argentina (customs value) 580 383, 395 o °
* Not applicable; there were no U.S. imports from Argentina. However, according to Official UN statistics, exports from
Argentina to other countries in 2002 had a unit value of *** per short ton.
Source: Compiled from data presented in the staff reports in the original investigation, the first five-year review, and official
statistics of Commerce (http://dataweb.usitc.govv/scrip/REPORT.asp).

35 Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. 1-9 (citing Staff Report of October 11, 1985, p. A-35).

% Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. 1-9 (citing 50 FR 18906, May 3, 1985). The preliminary dumping margin was
64.44 percent and was based on the best information available.

>” Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p.1-9. According to official Commerce statistics, there were no subject imports
reported for 1985 after June of that year, and such imports during January-April 1985 accounted for 61 percent of
the 908 short tons of barbed wire and barbless wire strand imported from Argentina in 1985. (IM 146 for April
1985, June 1985, and December 1985.)

38 Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina: Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Review), USITC Pub. 3187,
May 1999, p. I-7.

» Official statistics of Commerce (http://dataweb.usitc. govv/script/REPORT. asp).
1-8



E. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the order is revoked, the
Commission is directed to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the
state of the industry in the United States, including but not limited to: (1) likely declines in output, sales,
market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative
effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment;
and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry,
including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product. All
relevant economic factors are to be considered within the context of the business cycle and the conditions
of competition that are distinctive to the industry.” As instructed by the statute, we have considered the
extent to which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the antidumping duty
order at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked.”

In the original determination the Commission found material injury to the domestic industry by
reason of imports of barbed wire and barbless wire strand at less than fair value, which had increased
both in absolute terms and relative to domestic consumption.”' It found declines in production and in
shipments and market share, as well as declines in capacity utilization and deterioration of the domestic
industry’s financial condition.”

Since the imposition of the antidumping duty order, the domestic industry’s market share
increased as subject imports exited the market, although in 2003, the industry’s market share was at a
lower level than in 1997.” The domestic industry, rather than nonsubject imports, gained the market
share lost by the subject imports subsequent to imposition of the antidumping duty order.” The domestic
market for barbed wire and barbless wire strand appears to be a mature one, and demand is unlikely to
increase through product development or new technology.” Given the high level of substitutability, it is
likely that any future increase in the market share of subject imports would be largely at the expense of
the domestic industry.

19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

© 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states that “the Commission may consider the
magnitude of the margin of dumping” in making its determination in a five-year review. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6).
The statute defines the “magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five-year reviews as
“the dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this title.”
19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv). See also SAA at 887. Commerce determined that the revocation of the antidumping
duty order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping by the sole identified Argentine
producer at a rate of 69.02 percent. It determined an “all others” margin of 69.02 percent as well. 69 Fed. Reg.
47404, 47405 (Aug. 5, 2004).

" The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the order is revoked,
the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While
these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an
industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.” SAA at
885.

” Original Determination at 8-9.

” Original Determination at 6-7.
TM CR/PR at Table I-5. In 2003, the domestic industry’s market share was 80.5 percent, compared with 80.5
percent in 1982, 73.4 percent in 1983, 69.8 percent in 1984, and 82.3 percent in 1997.

TM CR and PR at Table I-5. Nonsubject import market share was 19.0 percent in 1982, 23.1 percent in 1983, 26.2
percent in 1984, 17.7 percent in 1997, and 19.5 percent in 2003.

75 CR at 1-6; PR at I-4.

12


domestic interested parties (such as producers, unions, trade associations, or worker groups) and
respondent interested parties (such as importers, exporters, foreign producers, trade associations, or
subject country governments) -- demonstrate a sufficient willingness among each group to participate and
provide information requested in a full review. If the Commission finds the responses from both groups
of interested parties adequate, or if other circumstances warrant, it will determine to conduct a full
review.”

In the first five-year review, the Commission received a joint response, containing company-
specific information, from three domestic producers: Davis Wire Corp. (“Davis”), Keystone Steel &
Wire Co. (“Keystone”), and Oklahoma Steel & Wire Co., Inc. (“Oklahoma S&W”). The Commission
conducted an expedited review, pursuant to section 1675(c)(3)(B) of the Act, and ultimately determined
that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.’ Commerce
published its notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order in August 1999."

In April 2004, the Commission instituted the present review to determine whether revocation of
the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within
a reasonably foreseeable time.'? The Commission received a joint substantive response containing
company-specific information to the notice of institution from three domestic producers, Davis,
Keystone, and Oklahoma S&W.'* The participating domestic producers accounted for an estimated ***
percent of U.S. production of barbed wire and barbless wire strand in 2003." As in its first review, the
Commission received no response from respondent interested parties.

In July 2004, the Commission determined that the response of the domestic interested party
group was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The
Commission voted to conduct an expedited review.'*

IL. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT AND INDUSTRY
A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c), the Commission defines the “domestic like
product” and the “industry.”'® The Act defines “domestic like product” as “a product which is like, or in
the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation
under this subtitle.”'’ The imported product subject to the order under review consists of barbed wire
and barbless fencing wire from Argentina, which is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff

° See 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(a); 63 Fed. Reg. 30599, 30602-05 (June 5, 1998).

© Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina, Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Review), USITC Pub. 3187
(May 1999) (“1999 Review”) at 3.

"1 64 Fed. Reg. 42653 (August 5, 1999).

'2 69 Fed. Reg. 17226 (April 1, 2004).

3 Collectively, we refer to these parties as the domestic producers. See Domestic Producers’ response to notice
of institution (May 21, 2004).

CR at I-9; PR at I-7.

15 69 Fed. Reg. 43013 (July 19, 2004); see also CR/PR at App. B (Explanation of Commission Determination on
Adequacy) (Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Daniel R. Pearson dissenting).

"6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

719 U.S.C. § 1677(10). See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v.
United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748-
49 (Ct. Int’] Trade 1990), aff'd, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., Ist Sess. 90-
91 (1979).



wire and barbless wire strand, and that the domestic industry consisted of the domestic producers of
barbed wire and barbless wire strand.”

ASTM specification A121 specifically provides for barbed wire in sizes of 12.5 gauge to 15.5
gauge with two or four barbed points. The barbed wire is packaged in spools of either 1,320 feet or
1,000 feet.* The breaking strength must not be less than 950 pounds.* As noted in the original
investigation, the useful life of the low-tensile (typically 12.5-gauge) and high-tensile (typically 15.5-
gauge) products is similar. Since 1997, there have been no changes in the technology or production
methods for making barbed wire.”> Except for the barbs, barbless wire strand is similar to the barbed
wire and typically is used in applications in which barbs would cause harm to certain livestock, such as
show horses.”

Uses

Barbed wire and barbless wire strand are galvanized steel products used in various fencing
applications. At the time of the original investigation as well as the first five-year review, approximately
90 percent of barbed wire was consumed in agricultural applications and 5 percent each in industrial and
Governmental security applications. The end uses and applications for barbed wire remain essentially
the same today -- primarily agricultural. Since 1997, there has been a slight decline in domestic demand
for barbed wire due to a general reduction in the number of cattle being raised and the gradual
consolidation of the agricultural industry. Demand for barbed wire also has been affected by the
introduction of some alternative fence products, such as field fence, electric fence, and high-tensile,
smooth wire fencing. Demand for barbed wire reportedly has improved recently, however, as the result
of the general economic recovery and the increased use of barbed wire for security purposes.””

Production Process

The production of barbed wire and barbless wire strand involves three principle stages. First,
carbon steel wire rod is drawn into wire by passing it through successively smaller dies, thereby
increasing the strength and ductility of the wire while diminishing its cross-sectional area. The same
wire drawing machines can be used to produce both high- and low-tensile wires, although different dies
are used and the machines are run at slower speeds when producing high-tensile wire. Second, the
corrosion-resistant zinc coating is applied. Third, two strands of wire are fed into a barbed wire machine
that evenly twists the wire under tension; the resulting product is twisted barbless wire strand. To make
the barbs, a third wire (for 2-barbed) and fourth wire (for 4-barbed) are fed into the machine, wrapped
around one or both of the twisted wires, and then cut to form the barbs. The barbs typically are spaced at

2 Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina, Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Final), USITC Pub. 1770,
October 1985, pp. 3-5 and Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina: Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Review),
USITC Pub. 3187, May 1999, p. 4.

?3 American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Volume 01.06 (West
Conshohocken, PA, 2000), p. 16.

?4 American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards 2000, Volume 01.06 (West
Conshohocken, PA, 2000), p. 16.

5 U.S. Producers’ Response, pp. 8 and 9 of attachments A, B, and C.
% Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. 1-5 (citing Staff Report of October 11, 1985, pp. A-4 and A-5).
2” U.S. Producers’ Response, pp. 8 and 9 of attachments A, B, and C.

I-5


The Original Investigation and First Five-Year Review

The Commission completed its original investigation in October 1985, determining that an
industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of barbed wire and barbless
wire strand from Argentina which Commerce determined were being sold, or were likely to be sold, at
less than fair value (LTFV).> Commerce issued an antidumping duty order on the imports of such
merchandise from Argentina on November 13, 1985. On December 2, 1998, the Commission gave
notice that it had instituted the first five-year review on barbed wire and barbless wire strand. In May
1999, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barbed wire and
barbless wire strand from Argentina would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.’ A historical chronology
of the original investigation and its first review is presented in table I-2.

Bavtod wire and barbless wire strand: Selected historical actions taken by the Commission and Commerce
Effective Date Action
Investigation No. 731-TA-208 (Final):
November 7, 1985 Commission issues determination (50 FR 46366)

November 13, 1985 Commerce issues antidumping duty order (50 FR 46808)

Investigation No. 731-TA-208 (Review):

December 2, 1998 Commission institutes review (63 FR 66563)
December 2, 1998 Commerce initiates review (63 FR 66527)
May 3, 1999 Commission issues determination (64 FR 24171, May 5, 1999)

Commerce issues continuation of antidumping duty order (64 FR 42653, August 5,
May 12, 1999 1999)

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

5 Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina: Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Final), USITC Pub. 1770,
October 1985. The original investigation resulted from petitions filed on behalf of Forbes Steel and Wire Corp.
(Forbes) on November 19, 1984, alleging that barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina, Brazil, and
Poland were, or were likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Subsequently, the petitioner
withdrew its petitions with respect to imports from Brazil and Poland and the Commission published notices of
termination in the Federal Register (50 FR 29770, July 22, 1985 for Poland and 50 FR 32775, August 14, 1985 for
Brazil).

© 50 FR 46808, November 13, 1985. The order required the posting of a cash deposit equal to the estimated
weighted-average antidumping duty margin of 69.02 percent for the reviewed firm, Acindar, and all other firms.

7 Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina: Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Review), USITC Pub. 3187,
May 1999. Chairman Lynn M. Bragg and Commissioners Carol T. Crawford and Thelma J. Askey determined that
revocation of the antidumping duty order on barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina would not be
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States.

12


UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-208 (Second Review)

Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record' developed in the subject five-year review, the United States
International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act
of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on barbed wire
and barbless wire strand from Argentina would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.”
BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on April 1, 2004 (69 FR 17226) and determined on

August 5, 2004 that it would conduct an expedited review (69 FR 47404).

' The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR §
207.2(f)).

? Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissenting.


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Loosely twisted double wire, suitable for fencing

C&F .......0-- Cost and freight
Commerce ... U.S. Department of Commerce
Commission US. International Trade Commission
CUStOMS 2.6... eee eee renee U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
DS) <a Federal Register
HTS ... Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Metric/English 1 metric ton=1.1023 short tons; 1 kilogram=2.2046
pounds
Response Response to the Commission’s Notice of Institution
TSUSA .. Tariff Schedules of the United States (Annotated)
UN occ eee cee n eens United Nations
GLOSSARY OF FIRMS
Acindar. 0... c cece cece ete eee eee Acindar Insustria Argentina de Aceros S.A.
Bekaert . Bekaert Steel & Wire Co.
Burly .. Burly Corp. of North America
CF&I .. CF&I Steel Corp.
Continental . Continental Steel Corp.
Davis ......... Davis Wire Corp.
Forbes ........- Forbes Steel and Wire Corp.
Insteel Insteel Industries, Inc.
Keystone ..... 0.0 e eee cece cece eee e eee Keystone Steel & Wire Co.
Midwest 0.2.2... 6.00 c eee e cence eee eee Midwest Air Technology
Nagle .. Nagle Wire Corp. of Colorado
Northwestern ... 0.2.60. 6 0. eee e cece eee eee Northwestern Steel & Wire Co.

Oklahoma SKW ... 2... 6c cece eee

Oklahoma Steel & Wire Co., Inc.

ii


The domestic parties assert that the domestic industry is in a vulnerable state because Keystone,
one of the largest U.S. producers of barbed wire and barbless wire strand, filed for bankruptcy protection
in February 2004. They also contend that the domestic industry has experienced significant increases in
raw material costs and transportation costs due to the sharp rise in oil and gas prices. According to the
domestic parties, increasing production costs adversely affect the profit margins of their domestic sales
of barbed wire and barbless wire strand because of these products’ price sensitivity.”

In the first five-year review, the Commission did not find the domestic industry to be ina
weakened state because the domestic producers’ share of the U.S. market had increased and they asserted
that prices had been stable over the past decade.” Since that first review, the domestic industry’s market
share, production levels, U.S. shipments, and unit values have all declined.” Further, domestic producer
Keystone filed for bankruptcy earlier this year and the industry is facing increased raw material and
transportation costs.” Thus, based on the record in this review, and in the absence of contrary evidence
or argument, we find that the domestic industry is vulnerable to material injury if the antidumping order
on subject imports from Argentina is revoked.*®

As discussed above, based on the limited record in this review, we conclude that if the order is
revoked, the likely volume of subject imports would be significant and that these imports would have
significant adverse price effects. Given the substitutable nature of the product, we find that a significant
volume of low-priced subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the production,
shipment, sales, and revenue levels of the domestic industry. This reduction in the industry’s production,
sales, and revenue levels would have a direct adverse impact on the industry’s profitability and
employment levels as well as its ability to raise capital and make and maintain necessary capital
investments, particularly in light of the industry’s increased costs. Accordingly, we conclude that if the
antidumping duty order is revoked, the subject imports would be likely to have a significant adverse
impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order covering
barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to the domestic barbed wire and barbless wire strand industry within a
reasonably foreseeable time.

6 Domestic Producers’ response to notice of institution at A-4, B-4, and C-4.
7” 1999 Review at 10 n.65.
78 CR/PR at Tables I-3 and I-5.

” Citing rising costs such as the price of natural gas, the cost of scrap metal, and pressure from cheaper imported
steel, Keystone filed for reorganization bankruptcy on February 26, 2004. Prior to its bankruptcy filing, Keystone
had tried to renegotiate a contract with the Independent Steelworkers Alliance (ISA) but was unable to obtain
concessions from the union. CR at I-9 n.33; PR at I-6 n.33.

8° SAA at 885 (“The term ‘vulnerable’ relates to susceptibility to material injury by reason of dumped or
subsidized imports. This concept is derived from existing standards for material injury and threat of material
injury....If the Commission finds that the industry is in a weakened state, it should consider whether the industry will
deteriorate further upon revocation of an order...”).

13


VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in this five-year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order covering barbed wire and
barbless wire strand from Argentina would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.'

This review covers barbed wire and barbless wire strand. Both barbed wire and barbless wire
strand are galvanized steel fencing components produced from stranded wire drawn from steel wire rod.
The wires are zinc-coated for corrosion-resistance, then twisted to form barbless wire strand (from two
wires) or barbed wire (from three or four wires). Both barbed wire and barbless wire strand are used
primarily in agricultural applications, although barbed wire also is used in industrial and, increasingly,
security applications.”

The domestic industry producing barbed wire and barbless wire strand has consolidated over the
past two decades. There are currently six firms known to produce barbed wire and barbless wire strand
in the United States, compared to nine in 1984 and eight in 1997.° Three firms alone accounted for an
estimated *** percent of domestic production in 2003.* As in 1997, domestic production accounted for
more than 80 percent of the U.S. market for barbed wire and barbless wire strand during 2003. Imports
of barbed wire and barbless wire strand from more than a dozen countries other than Argentina —
primarily Mexico and Brazil — supplied the remainder of the U.S. market. In contrast, barbed wire and
barbless wire strand from Argentina have been absent from the U.S. market since 1987.

L BACKGROUND

In October 1985, the Commission completed its investigation and determined that an industry in
the United States was being materially injured by reason of imports of barbed wire and barbless wire
strand from Argentina that were being sold at less than fair value.’ In November 1985, the Department of
Commerce (“Commerce”) issued an antidumping duty order on imports of barbed wire and barbless wire
strand from Argentina.’ In December 1998, the Commission instituted its first five-year review pursuant
to section 751(c) of the Act.

In five-year reviews, the Commission first determines whether to conduct a full review (which
would include a public hearing, the issuance of questionnaires, and other procedures) or an expedited
review. In order to make this decision, the Commission first determines whether individual responses to
the notice of institution are adequate. Next, based on those responses deemed individually adequate, the
Commission determines whether the collective responses submitted by two groups of interested parties --

' Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson determine that revocation of the
antidumping duty order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in
the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See their dissenting views. They join in Sections I and II of
these views.

? Confidential Report (as revised by memorandum INV-BB-103, August 13, 2004) (“CR”) at I-6 to I-8, Public
Report (“PR”) at [-4 to I-5.

* The most recent full year of the original investigation period was 1984, and of the first five-year review period,
1997.

* CR at I-8 to 1-9 & n.34, PR at I-7 & n.34.
5 CR/PR at Table I-5; CR at I-10 to I-11; PR at I-8 to 1-9.

* Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina, Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Final), USITC Pub. No. 1770
(Oct. 1985) (“Original Determination”) (Vice Chairman Liebeler dissenting).

750 Fed. Reg. 46808 (Nov. 13, 1985).
* 63 Fed. Reg. 66563 (Dec. 2, 1998),


increasing, which squeezes domestic firms’ margins and operating profits.'* These parties indicate that
since 1997, there has been a slight decline in domestic demand for barbed wire owing to a general
reduction in the number of cattle being raised in the United States and the gradual consolidation of the
agricultural industry, although recent demand conditions have improved in line with the general
economic recovery.'® According to domestic interested parties, since 1997 there have been no significant
changes in the technology for making barbed wire.” Finally, the record indicates some significant
entries and departures from the U.S. barbed wire market since 1997, particularly the exit from the
business and subsequent bankruptcy of Northwestern Steel and Wire Company, coupled with the entry
into the market of Midwest Air Technologies, which has recently begun limited production of barbed
wire.””

Based on the record, we find that conditions of competition have changed significantly in the
U.S. barbed wire market, both when the current market is compared to the market at the time of the
original investigation, and when it is compared to the market at the time of the first sunset review. In
light of these changes, it is at best unclear whether such changes have rendered the domestic barbed wire
industry more susceptible to injury in the event of revocation of the order.

With regard to changes in the market since 1997, the most significant change is the recent
unprecedented surge in domestic steel prices.”” Although this surge undoubtedly led to an increase in
domestic producers’ costs, there is no evidence on the record that domestic producers were unable to
raise their barbed wire prices commensurately.”> Similarly, a significant change in the conditions of
competition is the acquisition of Acindar by the Luxembourg steel conglomerate Arcelor, which is
currently the largest steel manufacturer in the world.** As noted below, however, there is no evidence on
the record that indicates that simply being part of a large multinational steel conglomerate would make
Acindar more likely to increase its exports to the United States in the event of revocation of the order.
Indeed, as discussed below, record evidence regarding Acindar’s declining volume of barbed wire
exports and the evolution of Mercosur indicate that Acindar is more likely as part of the Arcelor group to
specialize in serving its domestic and regional markets, as part of a global rationalization of production
by Arcelor.

Finally, with regard to changes in the market since the time of the original investigation, we find
it significant that domestic barbed wire producers have maintained their market share at a level
comparable to that at the start of the original period of investigation, even though nonsubject imports are
still an important factor in the marketplace. Specifically, domestic producers hold 80.5 percent of the
market in 2003, which is identical to their share in 1982, the initial year for which data were collected in
the original investigation.’ Nonsubject imports currently hold approximately 20 percent of the U.S.
market, which is comparable to their share in 1982.” Hence, the domestic industry is no worse off in
terms of its market position currently than it was nearly two decades ago.

'8 Domestic Parties’ Response to Notice of Institution (Domestic Response), May 21, 2004, at A-4.
Id. at A-8.

0 Td. at A-9.

1d.

2 INV-BB-098, Staff Report to the Commission (confidential version) (“CR”), at I-8; Staff Report to the
Commission (public version) (“PR”), at I-6.

3 Domestic interested parties did not provide any information on current price levels for barbed wire, or on price
trends since 1997.

CR at I-13; PR at I-10.
25 CR/PR at table 1-5.
61d.

19


Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand
From Argentina

Investigation No. 731-TA-208 (Second Review)

‘Publication 3718 August 2004

U.S. International Trade Commission

ye 3

Washington, DC 20436


47404

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 150/Thursday, August

5, 2004 / Notices

Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dHynek@doc.gov).

Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk
Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
David__Rostker@omb.eop.gov.

Dated: July 29, 2004.

Gwellnar Banks,

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-17898 Filed 84-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-605, A-423-808, A-475-822, A-580-
831]

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice
From Brazil and Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils From Belgium, Italy, and the
Republic of Korea; Extension of Final
Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews
of Antidumping Duty Order

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

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit
for final results of expedited sunset
reviews: frozen concentrated orange
juice from Brazil and stainless steel
plate in coils from Belgium, Italy, and
the Republic of Korea.

‘SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(“the Department”) is extending the
time limit for its final results in the
expedited sunset review of the
antidumping duty orders on frozen
concentrated orange juice (“FCOJ”) from
Brazil and stainless steel plate in coils
(“‘SSPC”) from Belgium, Italy, and the
Republic of Korea. As a result of this
extension, the Department intends to
issue final results of these sunset
reviews on or about August 30, 2004.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hilary E. Sadler, Esq., Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482-4340.

Extension of Final Results

On April 1, 2004, the Department
initiated sunset reviews of the
antidumping duty orders of FCOJ from
Brazil and SSPC from Belgium, Italy,
and Korea. See Initiation of Five-Year
(Sunset) Reviews, 69 FR 17129 (April 1,
2004). In these proceedings, the
Department determined that it would
conduct expedited sunset reviews of
these orders based on responses from
the domestic and respondent interested
parties to the notice of initiations. The
Department's final results of these
reviews were originally scheduled for
July 30, 2004.

In accordance with section
751(c)(5)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (“the Act”), the Department
may treat sunset reviews as
extraordinarily complicated if the issues
to be considered are complex. In these
reviews, the Department is analyzing
the itude of dumping margins
likely to prevail for several companies
from multiple countries and additional
issues surrounding import volume.
Because the Department has determined
that these issues are complex according
to 751(c)(5)(C)(ii) of the Act, we are
extending the deadline for issuance of
the final results. The Department
intends to issue the final results on or
about August 30, 2004 in accordance
with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.

Dated: July 30, 2004,
Joseph A. Spetri

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

[FR Doc, 04-17920 Filed 84-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-357-405]

Barbed Wire and Barbless Fencing
Wire From Argentina; Expedited
Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty
Order; Final Results

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

ACTION: Expedited sunset review of
antidumping duty order on barbed wire
and barbless fencing wire From
Argentina; final results.

SUMMARY: On April 1, 2004, the
Department of Commerce (“‘the
Department”) initiated a sunset review
of the antidumping duty order on
barbed wire and barbless fencing wire
(“barbed wire”) from Argentina. On the
basis of the notice of intent to

participate, and an adequate substantive
response filed on behalf of the domestic
interested parties and an inadequate
response, i.e., no response from
respondent interested parties, the
Department conducted an expedited
(120-day) sunset review. As a result of
this sunset review, the Department finds
that revocation of the antidumping duty
order would likely lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping at the levels
listed below in the section entitled
“Final Results of Review.”

DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2004,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050.
‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 1, 2004, the Department
initiated a sunset review of the
antidumping duty order on barbed wire
from Argentina pursuant to section
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (“the Act”). The Department
received Notice of Intent to Participate
on behalf of Davis Wire Corporation,
Keystone Steel & Wire Company, and
Oklahoma Steel & Wire Company, Inc.
(“domestic interested parties”), within
the deadline specified in section
351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's
regulations. The domestic interested
parties claimed interested party status
under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as
U.S. producers of the subject
merchandise. We received a complete
response from the domestic interested
parties within the 30-day deadline
specified in the Department’s
regulations under section
351.218(d)(3)(i). However, we did not
receive responses from any respondent
interested parties as required in section
351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Departments
regulations. As a result of receiving no
responses from respondent interested
parties, the Department conducted an
expedited (120-day) sunset review of
this order pursuant to section
751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the
Department’s regulations.

‘he antidumping duty order remains
in effect for all Argentine
manufacturers, producers, and exporters
of the subject merchandise.

Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by this
order is barbed wire and barbless

4 See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews, 69
FR 17129 (April 1, 2004).


effects on volumes and prices of imports.” Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature. The
U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the sunset review
provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year
reviews.” 76 ?7

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or
termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of time.
According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case-to-case, but normally will
exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis [in antidumping
investigations].””° *°

928

2 SAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, vol, I, at 883-84 (1994). The SAA states that “[t]he likelihood of injury
standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury, threat of
material injury, or material retardation of an industry). Likewise, the standard applies to suspended investigations
that were never completed.” SAA at 883.

4 While the SAA states that ‘a separate determination regarding current material injury is not necessary,” it
indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely continued depressed
shipment levels and current and likely continued [sic] prices for the domestic like product in the U.S. market in
making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury if the order is revoked.”
SAA at 884.

25 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’! Trade 2003) (“‘likely’ means
probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States,
Slip Op. 02-153 at 7-8 (Ct. Int’] Trade Dec. 24, 2002) (same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-
152 at 4n.3 & 5-6 n.6 (Ct. Int’] Trade Dec. 20, 2002) (“more likely than not” standard is “consistent with the court’s
opinion”; “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals

hailand) Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’! Trade Sept. 4, 2002) (‘standard is based on a
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”); Usinor v. United States, Slip Op. 02-70 at 43-44
(Ct. Int’! Trade July 19, 2002) (““‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely ‘possible””).

6 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No.
AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of
International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in this review and all
subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
addresses this issue.

27 Commissioner Hillman interprets the statute as setting out a standard of whether it is “more likely than not”
that material injury would continue or recur upon revocation. She assumes that this is the type of meaning of
“probable” that the Court intended when the Court concluded that “likely” means “probable”. See Separate Views of
Vice Chairman Jennifer A. Hillman Regarding the Interpretation of the Term “Likely”, in Certain Carbon Steel
Products from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, The
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom (Views on Remand), Invs. Nos.
AA1921-197 (Review), 701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350 (Review), and 73 1-TA-573-
576, 578, 582-587, 604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3526 (July 2002) at 30-31.

28 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

9° SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or
differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic
products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),

and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,
such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

°° In analyzing what constitutes a reasonably foreseeable time, Chairman Koplan examines all the current and
likely conditions of competition in the relevant industry. He defines “reasonably foreseeable time” as the length of
time it is likely to take for the market to adjust to a revocation or termination. In making this assessment, he
considers all factors that may accelerate or delay the market adjustment process including any lags in response by
(continued...)


Schedule (HTS) heading 7313.00.00. The HTS heading is provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written description remains dispositive.'*

Barbed wire and barbless wire strand are galvanized steel products used in various fencing
applications. Barbed wire is produced from low carbon steel wire rod having 0.08 to 0.22 percent carbon
content by weight. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) identifies two major
categories of barbed wire: low-tensile (also known as “Iowa” or standard) and high-tensile (also known
as “Gaucho”). Low-tensile barbed wire was the original barbed wire used in the United States and is
produced from low carbon steel rod, with a carbon content of 0.08 to 0.10 percent. High-tensile barbed
wire, first produced in the United States in 1972, also is produced from low carbon steel rod, but with a
carbon content of 0.18 to 0.22 percent. High-tensile barbed wire is lighter in weight than low-tensile
wire. Except for the barbs, barbless wire strand is similar to the barbed wire and typically is used in
applications in which barbs would cause harm to certain livestock, such as show horses.’

We find, based on the facts available, that the appropriate definition of the domestic like product
in this expedited five-year review is the same as Commerce’s scope and unchanged from the
Commission’s original determination and first five-year review.”

B. Domestic Industry

Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the relevant industry as the “domestic producers as a whole
of a like product, or those producers whose collective output of the like product constitutes a major
proportion of the total domestic production of that product.”’' Accordingly, we find that the domestic
industry includes all domestic producers of barbed wire and barbless wire strand.

I. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF
THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER IS REVOKED

A. Legal Standard In A Five-Year Review

In a five-year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Act, Commerce will revoke an
antidumping duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that dumping is likely to continue or recur,
and (2) the Commission makes a determination that revocation of the antidumping duty order “would be
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”””
The SAA states that “under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counter-factual
analysis; it must decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in
the status quo — the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining

'8 69 Fed. Reg. 47404 (Aug. 5, 2004).
' CR at I-5 to I-7; PR at I-5.
2° Original Determination at 5, 1999 Review at 4.

1 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A). In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been to
include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll-produced, captively
consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market, provided that adequate production-related activity is conducted
in the United States. See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 682-83 (Ct. Int’] Trade
1994), aff'd 96 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

® 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).



Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 63/Thursday, April 1, 2004/Notices

17227

separate service list will be maintained
by the Secretary for those parties
authorized to receive BPI under the
APO.

Certification —Pursuant to section
207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any
person submitting information to the
Commission in connection with this
review must certify that the information
is accurate and complete to the best of
the submitter’s knowledge. In making
the certification, the submitter will be
deemed to consent, unless otherwise
specified, for the Commission, its
employees, and contract personnel to
use the information provided in any
other reviews or investigations of the
same or comparable products which the
Commission conducts under Title VII of
the Act, or in internal audits and
investigations relating to the programs
and operations of the Commission
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions.—Pursuant to
section 207.61 of the Commission’s
rules, each interested party response to
this notice must provide the information
specified below. The deadline for filing
such responses is May 21, 2004.
Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the
Commission's rules, eligible parties (as
specified in Commission rule
207,62(b)(1)) may also file comments
concerning the adequacy of responses to
the notice of institution and whether the
Commission should conduct an
expedited or full review. The deadline
for filing such comments is June 14,
2004. All written submissions must
conform with the provisions of sections
201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s
rules and any submissions that contain
BPI must also conform with the
requirements of sections 201.6 and
207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The
Commission’s rules do not authorize
filing of submissions with the Secretary
by facsimile or electronic means, except
to the extent permitted by section 201.8
of the Commission's rules, as amended,
67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also,
in accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules,
each document filed by a party to the
review must be served on all other
parties to the review (as identified by
either the public or APO service list as
appropriate), and a certificate of service
must accompany the document (if you
are not a party to the review you do not
need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested
information.—Pursuant to section
207,.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any
interested party that cannot furnish the
information requested by this notice in
the requested form and manner shall
notify the Commission at the earliest
possible time, provide a full explanation

of why it cannot provide the requested
information, and indicate alternative
forms in which it can provide
equivalent information. If an interested
party does not provide this notification
{or the Commission finds the
explanation provided in the notification
inadequate) and fails to provide a
complete response to this notice, the
Commission may take an adverse
inference against the party pursuant to
section 776(b) of the Act in making its
determination in the review.

Information to be provided in
response to this notice of institution: As
used below, the term “firm” includes
any related firms.

tj The name and address of your firm
or entity (including World Wide Web
address if available) and name,
telephone number, fax number, and e-
mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether
your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of
the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union
or worker group, a U.S. importer of the
Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer
or exporter of the Subject Merchandise,
aU.S. or foreign trade or business
association, or another interested party
(including an explanation). If you are a
union/worker group or trade/business
association, identify the firms in which
your workers are employed or which are
members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether
your firm/entity is willing to participate
in this review by providing information
requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of
the revocation of the antidumping duty
order on the Domestic Industry in
general and/or your firm/entity
specifically. In your response, please
discuss the various factors specified in
section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1675a(a)) including the likely volume of
subject imports, likely price effects of
subject imports, and likely impact of
imports of Subject Merchandise on the
Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently
operating U.S. producers of the
Domestic Like Product. Identify any
known related parties and the nature of
the relationship as defined in section
771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
1677(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently
operating U.S. importers of the Subject
Merchandise and producers of the
Subject Merchandise in the Subject
Country that currently export or have
exported Subject Merchandise to the
United States or other countries after
1997.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the
Domestic Like Product, provide the
following information on your firm's

operations on that product during
calendar year 2003 (report quantity data
in short tons and value data in U.S.
dollars, f.0.b. plant). If you are a union/
worker group or trade/business
association, provide the information, on
an aggregate basis, for the firms in
which your workers are employed/
which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total U.S. production of the Domestic
Like Product accounted for by your
firm’s(s’) production;

(b) The quantity and value of U.S.
commercial shipments of the Domestic
Like Product produced in your U.S.
plant(s); and -

{c) The quantity and value of U.S.
internal consumption/company
transfers of the Domestic Like Product
produced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a
trade/business association of U.S.
importers of the Subject Merchandise
from the Subject Country, provide the
following information on your firm’s(s’)
operations on that product during
calendar year 2003 (report quantity data
in short tons and value data in U.S.
dollars). If you are a trade/business
association, provide the information, on
an aggregate basis, for the firms which
are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed,
duty-paid but not including
antidumping or countervailing duties)
of U.S. imports and, if known, an.
estimate of the percentage of total U.S.
imports of Subject Merchandise from
the Subject Country accounted for by
your firm’s(s’) imports;

(b) the quantity and value (f.0.b. U.S.
port, including antidumping and/or
countervailing duties) of U.S.
commercial shipments of Subject
Merchandise imported from the Subject
Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (f.0.b. U.S.
port, including antidumping and/or
countervailing duties) of U.S. internal
consumption/company transfers of
Subject Merchandise imported from the
Subject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter,
ora trade/business association of
producers or exporters of the Subject
Merchandise in the Subject Country,
provide the following information on
your firm’s(s’) operations on that
product during calendar year 2003
(report quantity data in short tons and
value data in U.S. dollars, landed and
duty-paid at the U.S. port but not
including antidumping or
countervailing duties). If you are a
trade/business association, provide the
information, on an aggregate basis, for


Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Funds to Affected Domestic Producers

Qualified U.S. producers of barbed wire and barbless wire strand have been eligible to receive
disbursements from the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) under the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), also known as the Byrd Amendment.'> CF&I Steel
Corp. (CF&I), Davis, Forbes, and Oklahoma S&W have been eligible to receive such funds in recent
years.'° However, no firm has received CDSOA funds in federal fiscal years 2001, 2002, or 2003."”

THE PRODUCT
Scope

The merchandise covered by this review is barbed wire and barbless wire strand of iron or steel.
Such merchandise is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) in heading
7313.00.00 and is free of duty regardless of country of origin.'* This HTS heading covers subject
merchandise as well as other steel and iron wire products, but predominately consists of barbed wire and
barbless wire strand.’

Description

Barbed wire is produced from low carbon steel wire rod having 0.08 to 0.22 percent carbon
content by weight. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) identifies two major
categories of barbed wire: low-tensile (also known as “Iowa” or standard) and high-tensile (also known
as “Gaucho”). Low-tensile barbed wire was the original barbed wire used in the United States and is
produced from low carbon steel rod, with a carbon content of 0.08 to 0.10 percent. High-tensile barbed
wire, first produced in the United States in 1972, also is produced from low carbon steel rod, but with a
carbon content of 0.18 to 0.22 percent. High-tensile barbed wire is lighter in weight than low-tensile
wire.”

In 1984, low-tensile barbed wire accounted for 67 percent (by quantity) of apparent U.S.
consumption of barbed wire and barbless wire strand, combined, and high-tensile barbed wire and
barbless wire strand accounted for 30 percent and 3 percent, respectively.”' In the original investigation
as well as the first review, the Commission determined that there was one domestic like product, barbed

5 19 U.S.C. § 1675c, 19 C.E.R. 159.64(g).

'6 69 FR 31162, June 2, 2004.

”” See U.S. Customs’ CDSOA Annual Reports for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.

'8 Prior to 1989 under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (Annotated) (TSUSA), this merchandise was
classified in items 642.02 and 642.11.

The HTS classification for barbed wire and barbless wire strand also includes “twisted hoop or single flat
wire.” There are no data reflecting what share these products may account for of the total basket classification, but
such imports, if any, are believed to be minimal.

? Staff Report of October 11, 1985, p. A-5.

7 Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. I-5 (citing Staff Report of October 11, 1985, p. A-4). At the time of the
original investigation, questionnaire data were collected on low-tensile barbed wire, high-tensile barbed wire, and
barbless wire strand. Separate official Commerce import data were also available at that time for barbed wire and
for barbless wire strand. Since the 1989 conversion from the TSUSA to the HTS, barbed wire and barbless wire
strand have been included in the same import category, and separate import data are no longer available.

14


Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 150/Thursday, August 5, 2004 / Notices

47405

fencing wire from Argentina, which is
currently classifiable under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) item number
7313,00.00. The HTS item numbers are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes. The written product
description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in this review are
addressed in the “Issues and Decision
Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”)
from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting
Director, Office of Policy, Import
Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini,
‘Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, dated July 30, 2004,
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
The issues discussed in the Decision
Memo include the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of dumping
and the magnitude of the margin likely
to prevail if the order were revoked.
Parties can find a complete discussion
of all issues raised in this sunset review
and the corresponding
recommendations in this public memo,
which is on file in room B-099 of the
main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memo can be accessed directly
on the Web at hitp://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn,
under the heading “August 2004.” The
paper copy and electronic version of the
Decision Memo are identical in content.

Final Results of Review

We determine that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on barbed wire
from Argentina would likely lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping
at the following percentage weighted-
average percentage margins:

Weighted-
Manufacturers/exportersipro- | average
ducers margin
(percent)
Acindar Industria Argentina de
69.02
69.02

This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders
(“APO”) of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of
proprietary information disclosed under
APO in accordance with 19 CFR
351.305 of the Department's regulations.
Timely notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the
results and notice in accordance with

sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.

Dated: July 30, 2004.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
‘Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
IER Doc, 04-1792 Filed 84-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P_

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-570-007]

Continuation of Antidumping Duty
Order: Barium Chloride From The
People’s Republic of China

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

ACTION: Notice of continuation of
antidumping duty order: barium
chloride from The People’s Republic of
China.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(“the Department”) has determined that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order on barium chloride from The
People’s Republic of China (“PRG”),
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of dumping. Therefore the
Department is publishing notice of the
continuation of the antidumping duty
order on barium chloride from the PRC.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha V. Douthit, Office of Policy,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5050.
‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
On February 2, 2004, the Department
initiated and the International Trade
Commission (“ITC”) instituted a sunset
review of the antidumping duty order
on barium chloride from The People’s
Republic of China (“PRC”), pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Act.? As a result of
its review, the Department found that
revocation of the antidumping duty
order would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping
and notified the ITC of the magnitude of
the margins likely to prevail were the
order to be revoked.? On July 23, 2004,

1 See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews,
69 FR 50 (January 2, 2004).

2 See Barium Chloride From The People’s
Republic of China; Final Results of the Sunset
Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 69 FR 3171
une 7, 2004).

the ITC determined pursuant to section
751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on barium
chloride from the PRC would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to an industry in the
United States within a reasonably
foreseeable time.3

Scope of the Order

The merchandise covered by this
order is barium chloride, a chemical
compound having the formula BaCl2 or
BaCl.-2H; 0, currently classifiable
under item 2827.38.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedules (HTS).
HTS items numbers are provided for
convenience and customs purposes. The
written descriptions remain dispositive.

Determination

As a result of the determinations by
the Department and ITC that revocation
of this antidumping duty order would
be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and material
injury to an industry in the United
States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of
the Act, the Department hereby orders
the continuation of the antidumping
duty order on barium chloride from the
PRC. The effective date of continuation
of this order will be the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to
sections 751(c)(2) and 751(c)(6) of the
Act, the Department intends to initiate
the next five-year review of this order
not later than July 2009.

Dated: July 30, 2004.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

[FR Doc, 04-17933 Filed 84-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

international Trade Administration
[Docket No. A-570-836]

Glycine From The People’s Republic of
China: Rescission of Antidumping
Duty New Shipper Review of Hebei
New Donghua Amino Acid Co., Ltd.

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

SUMMARY: On May 6, 2003, the
Department published the notice of
initiation of the new shipper review of
the antidumping duty order on glycine

3 See Barium Chloride From China, 69 FR 44059
Guly 23, 2004), and USITC Publication 3702 uly
2004) (Second Review), Investigation No. 731-TA—
149.


Related Investigations

Barbed wire and barbless wire strand had not been the subject of antidumping or countervailing
duty investigations prior to 1985, but were among the products included in the Commission’s
investigation No. TA-201-51, Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Products, completed in July 1984.° On the
basis of information developed in that investigation, the Commission, on July 24, 1984, notified the
President of its determination that certain products, including wire and wire products, were being
imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury
to the domestic industries producing articles like or directly competitive with the imported articles.?
President Ronald Reagan determined that import relief was not in the national economic interest.
However, the President directed the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to take a series of steps,
including the negotiation of “surge control” arrangements and the reaffirmation of existing measures with
countries that had voluntarily restrained their exports to the U.S. market.'®

The Commission has not conducted an antidumping or countervailing duty investigation relating
to barbed wire and barbless wire strand since 1985. However, following receipt of a request from USTR
on June 22, 2001, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-201-73, Steel, under section 202 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2252) to determine whether certain steel products, including certain
related carbon and alloy steel wire and wire products, were being imported into the United States in such
increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic
industries producing articles like or directly competitive with the imported article." On July 26, 2001,
the Commission received a resolution adopted by the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate
requesting that the Commission investigate certain steel imports under Section 201 of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2251). Consistent with the Senate Finance Committee’s resolution, the Commission
consolidated the investigation requested by the Committee with the Commission’s previously instituted
investigation No. TA 201-73.’ On December 20, 2001, the Commission issued its determinations and
remedy recommendations. The Commission made negative determinations with respect to carbon and.
alloy steel wire as well as wire products, including strand, rope, cable, and cordage.'*

Commerce’s Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review

Effective August 5, 2004, Commerce issued its “Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review”
concerning barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina.'* Commerce’s review covers all
manufacturers and exporters of barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina. Commerce
determined that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the antidumping duty order is revoked, and
calculated likely margins of dumping to be 69.02 percent ad valorem.

® Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Products: Inv. No. TA-201-51, USITC Pub. 1553, July 1984.
° 49 FR 30307 (August 1, 1984).
© 49 FR 36813 (September 20, 1984).

" 66 FR 35267 (July 3, 2001). Barbed wire and barbless wire strand, however, were not included in the
definition of the imported article.

? 66 FR 44158 (August, 22, 2001).
3 66 FR 67304 (December 28, 2001).
4 69 FR 47404 (August 5, 2004).

13




exceed the ‘imminent’ time frame applicable in a threat of injury analysis in antidumping and
countervailing duty investigations.”®

Although the standard in five-year reviews is not the same as the standard applied in original
antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, it contains some of the same fundamental elements.
The statute provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of
imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation
is terminated.”’ It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determination, whether
any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under
review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension
agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§ 1675(a)(4)#

B. Facts Available

The statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year reviews, but such
authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as a
whole in making its determination.’ We generally give credence to the facts supplied by the participating
parties and certified by them as true, but base our decision on the evidence as a whole, and do not
automatically accept the participating parties’ suggested interpretation of the record evidence.
Regardless of the level of participation and the interpretations urged by participating parties, the
Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors and may not
draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. In general, the Commission makes
determinations by “weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to
the domestic industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most
persuasive.””° In this case, not all interested parties participated in this review. Accordingly, we have
relied on the facts available in this review, which consist primarily of the report and opinion in the
original determinations, the report and opinions in the first five-year review, information collected by the
Commission since the institution of this second five-year review, and information submitted by the
domestic producers in this review.

We note that, in this review, we are basing our decision on a very limited record. Although the
Commission does not issue questionnaires in expedited reviews, the Commission’s Notice of Institution

© SAA at 887. Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the fungibility or
differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the imported and domestic
products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as spot sales or long-term contracts),
and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may only manifest themselves in the longer term,
such as planned investment and the shifting of production facilities.” Id.

719 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

* 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the
Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s
determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is
necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. We note that no duty absorption findings have been made by Commerce.

° 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B); 19 CFR § 207.62(e). Section 751(c)(3) of the Act and the Commission’s
regulations provide that in an expedited five-year review the Commission may issue a final determination “based on
the facts available, in accordance with section 776 of the Act.” Section 776 of the Act, in turn, authorizes the
Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a determination when: (1) necessary information is not
available on the record or (2) an interested party or any other person withholds information requested by the agency,
fails to provide such information in the time or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding,
or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

' SAA at 869.

16


The domestic interested parties that responded to the Commission’s notice of the institution of its
second five-year review contend that imports of barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina
stopped entering the U.S. market during the course of the original investigation, and there have been no
imports since 1986. They assert, however, that Acindar would have no difficulty resuming shipments
of barbed wire to the United States as a result of its resources and connections to Arcelor’s global
network.*! In addition, domestic interested parties point to recent reports that Acindar “exports much of
its production.”

*® (continued)
their individual tariff schedules to the CET (common external tariff) by January 1, 2006.” Also, Bolivia, Chile, and
Peru are existing associate members of Mercosur and participate in the free trade agreement, but not in the CET.
2004 Trade Policy Agenda and 2003 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements
Program, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, retrieved from
www.ustr.gov/reports/2004Annual/II1-bilateral. pdf on July 26, 2004. In addition, Venezuela became an associate
member in July 2004. See “Venezuela Joins Mercosur Trade Bloc” in The State.com (retrieved July 30, 2004). For
additional historical information, see also “Mercosur: Implications for Growth in Member Countries” in
newyorkfed.com - Current Issues in Economics and Finance - May 1999 (intra-Mercosur trade as a share of member
countries’ total trade rose from roughly 12 percent in 1991 to 19 percent in 1994; intra-Mercosur exports increased
from 11 percent of total exports in 1991 to 20 percent in 1996).

*° American Iron and Steel Institute, Annual Statistical Report (1980-2003); American Iron and Steel Institute,
AIS Imports 3 (March 2004); and U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 2 of attachments A, B, and C.

5! U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 5 of attachments A, B, and C.
» http:/Mbiz.yahoo.com/rm/0405 1 0/financial_argentina-acindar-2.html; U.S. Producers’ Response, exhibit 4.

T-ll




G. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the antidumping order is
revoked, the Commission considers all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the
state of the industry in the United States, including, but not limited to: (1) likely declines in output, sales,
market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity; (2) likely negative
effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment,
and (3) likely negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the industry,
including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like product.”

Subject imports are not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic barbed wire
industry if the order is revoked. Evidence on the issue of vulnerability of the domestic industry is, at
best, mixed. Domestic parties claim that the industry’s vulnerability is evidenced by rapidly rising
production and energy costs, along with Keystone’s February 2004 bankruptcy.*' In July 2004, however,
Keystone reached a tentative agreement with its union that will likely have a positive impact on its
bankruptcy situation.” In addition, there is record evidence indicating that at least one new U.S.
producer has entered the U.S. market since the first sunset review. Moreover, as noted above, although
the U.S. industry has been faced with increased costs, the record is devoid of evidence on the issue of
whether the industry has been able to raise prices so as to pass along increased costs to its customers.
Finally, we note that the domestic industry’s production levels and market share are both as high or
higher than they were at the time of the original investigation.“

Even were we to conclude that the industry is currently vulnerable, because we have concluded
that, in the event of revocation, the volume of subject imports and their effect on U.S. prices would not
likely be significant, we cannot conclude that such imports would be likely to have a significant impact
on domestic barbed wire producers’ cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise
capital, or investment within a reasonably foreseeable time in the event the order is revoked. We
therefore find that revocation of the order is not likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of
material injury to the domestic barbed wire industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

CONCLUSION

Subject imports are not likely to have significant adverse volume or price effects in the event of
revocation, and are therefore not likely to have a negative impact on the domestic industry. Thus, we
find that material injury to the U.S. barbed wire and barbless wire strand industry is not likely to continue
or recur within a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping order on barbed wire and barbless wire
strand from Argentina is revoked.

#19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).

“| Domestic Response at A-4.

21d.

CR at 1-9; PR at 1-6.

“* CR/PR at table I-3; CR/PR at table I-5.

22




43014

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 137/Monday, July 19, 2004/ Notices

of Commerce extend the time limit for
its completion of the final results of its
review, the deadline for comments
(which may not contain new factual
information) on Commerce's final
results is three business days after the
issuance of Commerce’s results. If
comments contain business proprietary
information (BPI), they must conform
with the requirements of sections 201.6,
207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's
rules. The Commission’s rules do not
authorize filing of submissions with the
Secretary by facsimile or electronic
means, except to the extent permitted by
section 201.8 of the Commission's rules,
as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8,
2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the rules, each document
filed by a party to the review must be
served on all other parties to the review
(as identified by either the public or BPI
service list), and a certificate of service
must be timely filed. The Secretary will
not accept a document for filing without
a certificate of service.

Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules.

Issued: July 13, 2004.

By order of the Commission.

Marilyn R. Abbott,

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-16273 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-20-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-512]

In the Matter of Certain Light-Emitting
Diodes and Products Containing
Same; Notice of Commission Decision
Not To Review an Initial Determination
Terminating the Investigation as to
One Respondent on the Basis of a
Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review the presiding administrative law
judge’s (“ALJ's”) initial determination
(“ID”) (Order No. 3) terminating the
above-captioned investigation as to
respondent American Opto Plus, Inc.
(“AOP”) on the basis of a settlement
agreement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Herrington, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205-3090. Copies of theAL's ID and all
other nonconfidential documents filed
in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for inspection
during official business hours (8:45 a.m.
to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-
205-2000. General information
concerning the Commission may also be
obtained by accessing its Internet server
(http://www.usite.gov). The public
record for this investigation may be
viewed on the Commission’s electronic
docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission's TDD terminal on 202-
205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on June 10, 2004, based on a complaint
filed by OSRAM GmbH and OSRAM
Opto Semiconductors GmbH, both of
Germany. 69 FR 32609 (June 10, 2004).
The complaint, as supplemented,
alleged violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation
into the United States, the sale for
importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of
certain light-emitting diodes and
products containing same by reason of
infringement of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and
10-13 of U.S, Patent No. 6,066,861;
claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10-13, and 15 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,245,259; claims 1-2, 6-7,
11-12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No.
6,277,301; claims 1, 5-10, and 13-16 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,376,902; claims 1 and
5~8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,469,321; claims
1, 5-8, 10-13, and 16-19 of U.S, Patent
No. 6,573,580; claim 4 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,576,930; claims 2-5, 7, and 10 of
U.S. Patent No. 6,592,780; and claims 1,
3, 6-7, 10, 12-15, 17, and 21 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,613,247. The complaint
and notice of investigation named three
respondents, including respondent
AOP.

On June 8, 2004, complainants and
respondent AOP filed a joint motion
pursuant to Commission rules 210.21(a)
and (b) to terminate the investigation as
to AOP on the basis of a settlement
agreement. The Commission
investigative attorney supported the
motion. On June 21, 2004, the ALJ
issued the subject ID terminating the
investigation as to AOP on the basis of
a settlement agreement. No petitions for
review of the ID were filed.

The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as.
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
section 210.42 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: July 14, 2004.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-16353 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337-TA-506]

In the Matter of Certain Optical Disk
Controller Chips and Chipsets and
Products Containing Same, Including
DVD Players and PC Optical Storage
Devices; Notice of Commission
Decision Not To Review an Initial
Determination Amending the
Complaint and Notice of Investigation
To Add Nine Additional Respondents

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined not to
review the presiding administrative law
judge’s (‘‘ALJ’s”) initial determination
(“ID”) amending the complaint and
notice of investigation to add nine
additional respondents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205-3012. Copies of the-ALJ’s ID and all
other nonconfidential documents filed
in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for inspection
during official business hours (8:45 a.m.
to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205-2000. General information
concerning the Commission may also be
obtained by accessing its Internet server
(http://www.usitc.gov). The public
record for this investigation may be
viewed on the Commission’s electronic
docket (EDIS-ON-LINE) at http://
edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on April 14, 2004, based on a complaint


17228 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 63/Thursday, April 1, 2004/Notices

the firms which are members of your
association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if
known, an estimate of the percentage of
total production of Subject Merchandise
in the Subject Country accounted for by
your firm’s(s’) production; and

(b) the quantity and value of your
firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of
Subject Merchandise and, if known, an
estimate of the percentage of total
exports to the United States of Subject
Merchandise from the Subject Country
accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if
any, in the supply and demand
conditions or business cycle for the
Domestic Like Product that have
occurred in the United States or in the
market for the Subject Merchandise in
the Subject Country after 1997, and
significant changes, if any, that are
likely to occur within a reasonably
foreseeable time. Supply conditions to
consider include technology;
production methods; development
efforts; ability to increase production
(including the shift of production
facilities used for other products and the
use, cost, or availability of major inputs
into production); and factors related to
the ability to shift supply among
different national markets (including
barriers to importation in foreign
markets or changes in market demand
abroad). Demand conditions to consider
include end uses and applications; the
existence and availability of substitute
products; and the level of competition
among the Domestic Like Product
produced in the United States, Subject
Merchandise produced in the Subject
Country, and such merchandise from
other countries.

(11) (Optional) A statement of
whether you agree with the above
definitions of the Domestic Like Product
and Domestic Industry; if you disagree
with either or both of these definitions,
please explain why and provide
alternative definitions.

Authority: This review is being conducted
under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act
of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to
section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules,

By order of the Commission.

Issued: March 25, 2004.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-7393 Filed 3-31-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P


in 1997." In contrast to the original investigation period, subject imports were absent from the U.S.
market in 1997 and 2003.*

The domestic market for barbed wire and barbless wire strand appears to be a mature one.
Current technology and production methods are essentially unchanged from those described in the
original investigation.’ Further, the end uses and applications for barbed wire and barbless wire strand
remain primarily agricultural, with other uses involving industrial and governmental security
applications.

The domestic producers characterize barbed wire and barbless wire strand as highly price
sensitive products.*’ In the original determination and first five-year review, the Commission described
barbed wire and barbless wire strand as a standardized product and listed no notable differences between
the domestic product and subject imports.“ As in the original investigation and first five-year review, the
available evidence suggests that domestic and subject imported barbed wire and barbless wire strand are
largely substitutable products and that price is an important consideration in purchasing barbed wire and
barbless wire strand.

Based on the record evidence, we find that these conditions of competition in the barbed wire
market are not likely to change significantly in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, in this
review, we find that current conditions in the barbed wire and barbless wire strand market provide us
with a reasonable basis on which to assess the likely effects of revocation of the order in the reasonably
foreseeable future.

(on Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review is
revoked, the Commission is directed to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be
significant either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States.” In
doing so, the Commission must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated
factors: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the
exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories;
(3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the
United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign country,
which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other
products.°°

We conclude, based on the facts available,*' that subject import volume is likely to increase
significantly and would be significant if the order is revoked. In making this finding, we recognize that

* CR/PR at Table I-5. Nonsubject import market share was 19.5 percent in 2003 compared with 19.0 percent in
1982, 23.1 percent in 1983, 26.2 percent in 1984, and 17.7 percent in 1997. Id.

“ CR/PR at Table I-5.

45 CR at I-6; PR at I-4 to I-5. Original Determination at 4; 1999 Review at 7.
“© CR at I-7; PRat I-5.

*7 CR at 1-8; PR at 1-6.

“ Original Determination at 4.

* 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A)-(D). The record contains no information pertaining to existing unused foreign
capacity to produce the subject merchandise or existing inventories of the subject merchandise. Domestic producers
did not report the existence of barriers in other countries with respect to imports of barbed wire and barbless wire
strand from Argentina.

5! See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).



capacity to produce the subject merchandise is potentially much greater. Moreover, its acquisition by
Arcelor and its access to Arcelor’s global network suggests that Acindar could readily resume shipments
to the United States absent the order. This indicates that the Argentine industry has the ability to
increase production to produce subject merchandise and to export significant volumes of barbed wire and
barbless wire strand to the United States if the order is revoked.

Because of the similarity in the conditions of competition prevailing today and those existing
prior to the imposition of the order, we find, based on the limited record, that significant volumes of
barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina are likely to be exported to the United States within
a reasonably foreseeable time if the antidumping duty order is revoked. Consequently, we conclude that
subject imports likely would increase to a significant level in the absence of the antidumping duty order
and likely would regain significant U.S. market share absent the restraining effect of the order.

D. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the antidumping duty order is revoked,
the Commission is directed to consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the
subject imports as compared to domestic like products and if the subject imports are likely to enter the
United States at prices that would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on the price of
domestic like products.

The record in this expedited review contains a limited amount of pricing data. In the original
determination, the Commission found that subject imports from Argentina consistently and significantly
undersold the U.S. product during the period examined in the original investigation by margins ranging
from a low of 9.1 percent to a high of 58.3 percent. Moreover, the average unit value of imports from
Argentina declined substantially from $580 per ton in 1982 to $395 per ton in 1984.°

The domestic producers characterize barbed wire and barbless wire strand as highly price
sensitive products.” In the first five-year review, the Commission described domestic and imported
barbed wire and barbless wire strand as substitutable products for which price is an important, if not
critical, factor in customers’ purchasing decisions.” There is no evidence in the current record to suggest
these facts have changed. In light of these facts, it is likely that the Argentine producers would offer
attractively low prices to U.S. purchasers in order to regain market share, as they did in the original
investigation, if the antidumping duty order is revoked. Thus, we conclude that prices for domestically
produced barbed wire and barbless wire strand would likely decline to a significant degree in response to
the likely significant volumes of substitutable subject imports offered at lower prices.

Accordingly, we find that revocation of the antidumping duty order would be likely to lead to
significant price effects, including significant underselling by the subject imports of the domestic like
product, as well as significant price depression and suppression, within a reasonably foreseeable time.

® 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3). The SAA states that “[c]onsistent with its practice in investigations, in considering
the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and termination, the Commission may rely on
circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” SAA
at 886.

% Original Determination at 8-9.
Td. at 9.

© CR at I-8; PR at I-6.

* 1999 Review at 9.

11


U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand
From Argentina

Investigation No. 731-TA-208 (Second Review)

Publication 3718 August 2004


significant changes in the technology or production methods for making barbed wire and barbless wire
strand, and the primary end uses and applications for barbed wire remain essentially the same.*!

THE INDUSTRY IN ARGENTINA

During June 1, 1984 - November 30, 1984, the period of Commerce’s original investigation, all
sales of barbed wire by Acindar, a major steel producer in Argentina, were investigated by Commerce.
According to the petition, Acindar accounted for substantially all of Argentina’s known exports of
barbed wire and barbless wire strand to the United States. During the time of the Commission’s original
investigation, Acindar was the sole exporter of these products from Argentina and almost the sole
domestic supplier to the Argentine market.*? Argentina’s capacity to produce the subject merchandise
remained constant at *** short tons during 1982-84, but its production increased in 1983, then decreased
in 1984 to a volume *** more than the 1982 level. Although exports coincided with the production
trends, domestic shipments decreased between 1982 and 1984 and the domestic market share of total
shipments slipped from *** percent in 1982 to less than *** percent in 1983 and 1984. *** was
Argentina’s largest export market for barbed wire and barbless wire strand during 1982-84, accounting
for *** percent of such exports.”

Acindar still produces barbed wire and barbless wire strand,“ but is now part of Arcelor of
Luxembourg, the largest manufacturer of steel products in the world.** Acindar has a melting capacity of
1.35 million metric tons annually, wire rod rolling capacity of 610,000 metric tons annually, and wire
production capacity of 130,000 metric tons annually.** Domestic interested parties did not report the
existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than the United
States.” Nonetheless, in 2002, the last year for which data are available, Argentina exported only ***
short tons of barbed wire and barbless wire strand, valued at ***; Bolivia and Paraguay accounted for
nearly *** and nearly ***, respectively, of the quantity of these exports.** ”

“| U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 9 of attachments A, B, and C.

” Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. I-11 (citing Staff Report of October 11, 1985, p. A-32).

* Staff Report of April 2, 1999, pp. I-11 and I-12 (citing Staff Report of October 11, 1985, p. A-33).

Tron and Steel Works of the World, 15" ed., (Metal Bulletin Directories Ltd., Worcester Park, 2002), p.l.

* Acindar webpage (www.acindar.com.ar/nuestra_empresa/hisoria.asp#); U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 5 of
attachments A, B, and C.

“6 Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A., Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 15, 2002, p. 22. Acindar report total wire and cable sales of 109,000 metric tons in the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2000 (79 percent sold domestically) and 111,000 metric tons in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001 (77
percent sold domestically). ibid, p. 27. Acindar’s domestic sales of wires and cables, however, declined by 17.7
percent between calendar year 2000 and calendar year 2002. Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A., Form 6-
K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2003, p. 1.

“7 In a decision dated August 1, 1990, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal declined to initiate a review of
an outstanding finding against barbed wire from Argentina, Brazil, Poland, and Korea, allowing the finding (which
dated from November 1985) to expire as of November 25, 1990.

48 Official UN statistics. This information is copyrighted and not to be distributed outside the U.S. Government.

*® Paraguay, like Argentina itself, is a member of Mercosur (Southern market), a common market among
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Mercosur, initiated in 1991 with the signing of the Treaty of Asuncion, is
a free trade area that applies a common external tariff to products originating outside of the union. According to
USTR, “Mercosur became operative on January 1, 1995, and covers some 85 percent of intra~Mercosur trade, with
each member allowed to maintain a list of sensitive products outside the FTA regime. Members aim to converge

(continued...)

1-10


E. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

The Commission is to consider whether the likely volume of subject imports would be significant
either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the United States if the order under
review were revoked. In so doing, the Commission shall consider “all relevant economic factors,”
including four enumerated in the statute: (1) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused
production capacity in the exporting country; (2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or
likely increases in inventories; (3) the existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise
in countries other than the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if the production
facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently
being used to produce other products.””

Our focus in this review is whether subject import volume is likely to be significant in the
reasonably foreseeable future if the antidumping order is revoked.” In performing our analysis, we have
taken into account the Commission’s previous volume findings with respect to the subject imports from
Argentina. In the original determination, the Commission found that subject imports from Argentina had
increased over sevenfold from 1982 to 1983, from 506 short tons in 1982 to 3,814 short tons in 1983, and
then declined slightly in 1984.” It further found that the U.S. market share held by subject imports from
Argentina rose from 0.5 percent in 1982 to 4.0 percent in 1984, by quantity.”° In light of the fact that, as
noted earlier, there have been significant changes in the market for barbed wire since the original
investigation, our analysis concentrates on a comparison between the current market and the market at
the time of the original investigation.

In this review, the Commission has little information addressing any of the statutory factors
noted above. Domestic parties did not report the existence of any barriers facing Acindar in third-
country markets.*! There is no information on the record concerning Acindar’s capacity to produce
barbed wire, its capacity utilization, or barbed wire inventories. Domestic interested parties claim that
Acindar is “export-oriented,” and hence theorize that Acindar’s status as part of the Arcelor family of
steel companies means that it would have little trouble (presumably from a logistical perspective)
resuming exports to the United States.” Information on the record, however, refutes domestic parties’
claim that Acindar is export-oriented, at least with regard to barbed wire. Specifically, United Nations
export statistics indicate that recent exports from Argentina of barbed wire have been minimal and have
been limited to destinations within the Mercosur free-trade area.”

Information from the original investigation indicates that, at least at that time, Acindar had the
ability and willingness to establish rapidly a presence in the U.S. market. It is not at all clear, however,
that, even if it is assumed that Acindar would respond today as it did 20 years ago, injury to the domestic
industry would necessarily recur. U.S. market share held by U.S. producers today is comparable to that
at the start of the period examined by the Commission in the original investigation (1982).** With U.S.
producers currently holding a market share of greater than 80 percent, any increased volumes of imports

” 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a\(2\(A-D).
19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

2 CR/PR at table 1-5.

14

*! On the contrary, an outstanding finding against barbed wire from Argentina in Canada dating from 1985 was
allowed to expire in 1990. CR at I-14, n.47; PR at I-10, n.47.

2 Domestic Response at A-5.

53 CR at I-14; PR at I-10-11. Argentina exported only *** short tons of barbed wire and barbless wire strand in
2002, all of which were exported to either full or associate members of Mercosur. Id.

* CR/PR at table I-5.

20


U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Stephen Koplan, Chairman
Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman
Marcia E. Miller
Jennifer A. Hillman
Charlotte R. Lane
Daniel R. Pearson

Robert A. Rogowsky
Director of Operations

Staff assigned
Stephanie Jacobs, Investigator
Trene Chen, Attorney
Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator

Address all communications to
Secretary to the Commission
United States International Trade Commission
Washington, DC 20436




intervals of 4 or 5 inches. The barbed wire and barbless wire strand are then coiled onto reels and
wrapped in a protective cover for shipment.”*

Domestic producers report that raw material costs for the steel used in the production of barbed
wire and barbless wire strand have increased dramatically in the year leading up to this review. Energy
costs, particularly oil and natural gas prices, have increased dramatically as well, causing transportation
costs to rise rapidly. Domestic producers characterize barbed wire and barbless wire strand as highly
price sensitive products. As a result, the margins on domestic sales of these products are seriously
impacted when production costs increase.”

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES
U.S. Producers

There were nine firms producing barbed wire and barbless wire strand in the United States in
1984: Bekaert Steel & Wire Co. (Bekaert), CF&I, Continental Steel Corp. (Continental), Davis, Forbes,
Keystone, Nagle Wire Corp. of Colorado (Nagle), Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. (Northwestern), and
Oklahoma S&W.*° In 1997, there were eight producing firms — two of the producers during the original
investigation had exited the domestic industry, a new firm had begun barbed wire operations, and the
barbed wire facilities of the petitioner, Forbes, were being operated by a new owner.*!

There have been additional changes to the domestic industry in recent years. Insteel, which had
acquired Forbes in 1989, sold its barbed wire business to Keystone in 1997. Davis acquired the wire-
producing operations of CF&I in June 1997, and continues these operations today. Northwestem
announced that it was exiting the fabricated wire products business, including barbed wire, in October
1998, and subsequently filed for bankruptcy in December 2000. By the summer of 2001, Northwestern
had ceased operations, and it is no longer in business. The only new entrant into the market is Midwest
Air Technology (Midwest), which began producing barbed wire in the United States in 2002 or 2003.
The company also imports wire products from China; its production of barbed wire reportedly is very
limited.”

Currently, there are six known and operating U.S. producers of the domestic like product: Davis,
Keystone, Oklahoma S&W, Bekaert, Burly, and Midwest. On February 26, 2004, however, Keystone
and its affiliated companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

%8 Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. I-6 (citing Staff Report of October 11, 1985, pp. A-5 and A-6).

9 U.S. Producers’ Response, p. 4 of attachments A, B, and C.

® Staff Report of October 11, 1985, p. A-8.

3! Staff Report of April 2, 1999, p. 1-7. Continental went bankrupt and ceased operation in 1986. Nagle exited
the barbed wire and barbless wire strand business when its plant equipment was bought by Keystone in 1987. Burly

Corp. of North America (Burly) began production in Burleston, TX, in 1987-88. Forbes’ barbed wire assets were
bought by Insteel Industries, Inc. (Insteel) in 1989.

» U.S. Producers’ Response, p.9 of attachments A, B, and C.

3 Citing “costs beyond its control...such as the price of natural gas, the cost of scrap metal, and pressure from
cheaper imported steel,” as hampering the company’s ability to do business, Keystone officials filed for
reorganization bankruptcy on February 26, 2004. Prior to the bankruptcy filing, the company had tried to renegotiate
a contract with the Independent Steelworkers Alliance (ISA) at its Bartinville, IL, mill. Attempts at achieving
concessions from the union reportedly failed when production workers at the mill voted to reject tentative deals on
two separate occasions -- one in January 2004 and one in February 2004. For several months, Keystone received
interim relief from the bankruptcy court for health benefits and contributions to the retirement plan. In June 2004, a
third round of negotiations between Keystone executives and ISA officials began. On July 16, 2004, a tentative

(continued...)

16


17226 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 63/Thursday, April 1, 2004/ Notices
(202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility the Domestic Industry as producers of
impairments who will need special barbed wire and barbless wire strand.
assistance in gaining access to the (5) An Importer is any person or firm
Commission should contact the Office engaged, either directly or through a
of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. parent company or subsidiary, in
General information concerning the importing the Subject Merchandise into
Commission may also be obtained by the United States from a foreign
accessing its Internet server (http:// manufacturer or through its selling
tryarausite.gov). The public record for agent ‘pation in th . d publi
‘is review may be viewed on the ‘articipation in the review and public
COMMISSION AL TRADE Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) Service list —Persons, including

[Investigation No. 731-TA-208 (Review)]

Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand
From Argentina

AGENCY: International Trade
Commission.

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review
concerning the antidumping duty order
on barbed wire and barbless wire strand
from Argentina.

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives
notice that it has instituted a review
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act)
to determine whether revocation of the
antidumping duty order on barbed wire
and barbless wire strand from Argentina
would be likely to lead to continuation
or recurrence of material injury.
Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act,
interested parties are requested to
respond to this notice by submitting the
information specified below to the
Commission;? to be assured of
consideration, the deadline for
responses is May 21, 2004. Comments
on the adequacy of responses may be
filed with the Commission by June 14,
2004. For further information
concerning the conduct of this review
and rules of general application, consult
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part
207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Messer (202) 205-3193), Office of
Investigations, U.S, International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-
impaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission's TDD terminal on

1No response to this request for information is
required if a currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the
OMB number is 3117-0016/USITC No. 04-5-085,
expiration date June 30, 2005. Public reporting
burden for the request is estimated to average 7
hours per response. Please send comments

ing the accuracy of this burden estimate to

the Office of Investigations, U.S, International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20436.

at http://edis.usitc.gov.
‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.—On November 13, 1985,
the Department of Commerce issued an
antidumping duty order on imports of
barbed wire and barbless wire strand
from Argentina (50 FR 46808).
Following five-year reviews by
Commerce and the Commission,
effective May 12, 1999, Commerce
issued a continuation of the
antidumping duty order on imports of
barbed wire and barbless fencing wire
from Argentina (64 FR 42653). The
Commission is now conducting a
second review to determine whether
revocation of the order would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of
material injury to the domestic industry
within a reasonably foreseeable time. It
will assess the adequacy of interested
party responses to this notice of
institution to determine whether to
conduct a full review or an expedited
review. The Commission’s
determination in any expedited review
will be based on the facts available,
which may include information
provided in response to this notice.

Definitions —The following
definitions apply to this review:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or
kind of merchandise that is within the
scope of the five-year review, as defined
by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Country in this review
is Argentina.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the
domestically produced product or
products which are like, or in the
absence of like, most similar in
characteristics and uses with, the
Subject Merchandise. In its original
determination and in its expedited five-
year review determination, the
Commission defined the Domestic Like
Product as barbed wire and barbless
wire strand.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S.
producers as a whole of the Domestic
Like Product, or those producers whose
collective output of the Domestic Like
Product constitutes a major proportion
of the total domestic production of the
product. In its original determination
and in its expedited five-year review
determination, the Commission defined

industrial users of the Subject
Merchandise and, if the merchandise is
sold at the retail level, representative
consumer organizations, wishing to
participate in the review as parties must
file an entry of appearance with the
Secretary to the Commission, as
provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the
Commission’s rules, no later than 21
days after publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. The Secretary will
maintain a public service list containing
the names and addresses of all persons,
or their representatives, who are parties
to the review.

Former Commission employees who
are seeking to appear in Commission
five-year reviews are reminded that they
are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15,
to seek Commission approval if the
matter in which they are seeking to
appear was pending in any manner or
form during their Commission
employment, The Commission is
seeking guidance as to whether a second
transition five-year review is the “same
particular matter” as the underlying
original investigation for purposes of 19
CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post
employment statute for Federal
employees. Former employees may seek
informal advice from Commission ethics
officials with respect to this and the
related issue of whether the employee’s
participation was “personal and
substantial.” However, any informal
consultation will not relieve former
employees of the obligation to seek
approval to appear from the
Commission under its rule 201.15. For
ethics advice, contact Carol McCue
Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official,
at (202) 205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business
proprietary information (BPI) under an
administrative protective order (APO)
and APO service list.—Pursuant to
section 207.7(a) of the Commission's
tules, the Secretary will make BPI
submitted in this review available to
authorized applicants under the APO
issued in the review, provided that the
application is made no later than 21
days after publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Authorized
applicants must represent interested
parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9),
who are parties to the review. A


INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE SECOND REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
Background

On April 1, 2004, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) gave notice that it had
instituted a second five-year review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on
barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina would be likely to lead to a continuation or
recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.’ On July 6, 2004, the Commission
determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution was adequate;?
the Commission also determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate.
The Commission found no other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.
Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct an expedited review pursuant to section
751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)).3 * The Commission voted on this review on
August 23, 2004, and notified the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) of its determination on
August 30, 2004. Information relating to the background of the review is presented in table I-1.

Baved wire and barbless wire strand: Chronology of investigation No. 731-TA-208 (Second Review)
Effective Date Action
April 1, 2004 Commission institutes second five-year review (69 FR 17226)
April 1, 2004 Commerce initiates second five-year review (69 FR 17129)
July 6, 2004 Commission votes to conduct expedited second five-year review

Commission issues scheduling notice for second five-year review (69 FR 43013, July 19,
duly 6, 2004 2004)

August 5, 2004 Commerce issues determination of expedited second five-year review (69 FR 47404)

August 23, 2004 | Commission's vote

August 30, 2004 | Commission's transmittal of determination and views to Commerce

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

' All interested parties were requested to respond to the notice by submitting information requested by the
Commission. Copies of the Commission’s Federal Register notices are presented in app. A.

? The Commission received one submission in response to its notice of institution for the subject review. On
May 21, 2004, a substantive response was filed on behalf of Davis Wire Corporation (Davis), Keystone Steel and
Wire Company (Keystone), and Oklahoma Steel and Wire Company, Inc. (Oklahoma S&W). Davis, Keystone, and.
Oklahoma S&W reportedly accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S. barbed and barbless wire strand
production in 2003. U.S. Producers’ May 21, 2004 Response to the Notice of Institution (U.S. Producers’
Response), p. 6 of attachments A, B, and C.

3 A copy of the Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy is presented in app. B.

* Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Daniel R. Pearson dissenting. Commissioners Lane and Pearson
concluded that the domestic group response was adequate and the respondent group response was inadequate but that
circumstances warranted a full review.

Ll


Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in an original
antidumping investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements. The statute provides that
the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the subject
merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated.”*! It
directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury determinations, whether any improvement in
the state of the industry is related to the order or the suspension agreement under review, whether the
industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated,
and any findings by Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).?

Section 751(c)(3) of the Act and the Commission’s regulations provide that in an expedited five-
year review the Commission may issue a final determination “based on the facts available, in accordance
with section 776 of the Act.”? We have relied on the facts available - in other words, all the evidence on
the record - in this review, which consist primarily of information from the original investigation and first
review, information collected by the Commission since the institution of this second five-year review,
information submitted by the domestic producers, and official Commerce statistics.

Although the information on the record in an expedited review is limited with respect to
conditions subsequent to the imposition of the order, the absence of more complete evidence does not
favor a determination that material injury is not likely upon revocation. In this case an important reason
for the sparse data on recent conditions is that respondent interested parties provided no information in
response to the Commission’s notice of institution. The domestic interested parties, however, responded
fully to the data requested in the Commission’s notice of institution.** Consequently, while the record
information is limited, we must determine whether the record information better supports the conclusion
that material injury is likely or that material injury is not likely.

For the reasons stated below, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on
barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.*>

3° (continued)
foreign producers, importers, consumers, domestic producers, or others due to: lead times; methods of contracting;
the need to establish channels of distribution; product differentiation; and any other factors that may only manifest
themselves in the longer term. In other words, this analysis seeks to define “reasonably foreseeable time” by
reference to current and likely conditions of competition, but also seeks to avoid unwarranted speculation that may
occur in predicting events into the more distant future.

3119 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). The statute further provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the
Commission is required to consider shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s
determination. 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). While the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is
necessarily dispositive. SAA at 886. Commerce has made no duty absorption findings for barbed wire and barbless
wire strand.

3 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B); 19 C.F.R. § 207.62(e). Section 776 of the Act, in turn, authorizes the Commission
to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a determination when: (1) necessary information is not available
on the record or (2) an interested party or any other person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to
provide such information in the time or in the form or manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or
provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a).

>* The notice requested that U.S. producers provide limited information on their operations in 2003, and to
indicate their willingness to participate in the Commission’s review. The notice did not request information on
current price levels or the domestic industry’s capacity, capacity utilization, or financial performance.

+5 Although Commissioner Lane recognizes that each Commission determination is sui generis, she notes that
there were significant differences with respect to the conditions of competition in this review and in Pressure
Sensitive Plastic Tape from Italy, Inv. No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), including
(continued...)


APPENDIX B
STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

B-1


EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY
in
Barbed Wire and Barbless Wire Strand from Argentina, Inv. No. 731-TA-208 (Second Review)

On July 6, 2004, the Commission! determined that it should proceed to an expedited review in the
subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B). ~

The Commission received a joint response from U.S. producers Davis Wire Corp., Keystone Steel
& Wire Co., and Oklahoma Steel & Wire Co., Inc. The Commission determined that the responses were
individually adequate. The Commission also determined that the response represented an adequate domestic
interested party group responses because the three producers account for a significant share of domestic
production of the like product.

The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested party. Consequently, the
Commission determined that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The
Commission did not find any circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review. The Commission
therefore determined to conduct an expedited review. A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from
the Office of the Secretary and the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).

' Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Daniel R. Pearson dissenting.


no subject imports are currently in the domestic market.” In a five-year review, however, our focus is on
whether subject import volume is likely to be significant within a reasonably foreseeable time if the
antidumping duty order is revoked.

The record from the original investigation indicates that the Argentine barbed wire and barbless
wire strand industry had the ability and willingness to establish quickly a significant presence in the U.S.
market. Imports of barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina increased substantially during
the period examined in the original investigation, both in terms of volume and market share. Between
1982 and 1984, imports increased from 506 short tons to 3,739 short tons — more than a 600 percent
increase.* At the same time, subject import market share increased from 0.5 percent of the U.S. market
in 1982 to 4.0 percent in 1984.**

During the original investigation, Argentine production shifted significantly from domestic
shipments to exports. Argentina’s capacity to produce the subject merchandise remained constant at ***
short tons during 1982-84, but its production increased in 1983 then decreased in 1984 to a volume ***
higher than the 1982 volume. Although exports coincided with the production trends, Argentina’s home
market shipments decreased between 1982 and 1984 and Argentina’s home market share of total
shipments fell from *** percent in 1982 to less than *** percent in 1983 and 1984. *** was Argentina’s
largest export market for barbed wire and barbless wire strand during 1982-84, accounting for ***
percent of such exports.

The record shows that, after Commerce published its preliminary determination of dumping in
May 1985, imports of barbed wire and barbless wire strand from Argentina quickly declined.** There
have been no U.S. imports of barbed wire or barbless wire strand from Argentina since 1987, likely due
to the restraining effects of the order.*” *

At the time of the original investigation, Acindar Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. (“Acindar”)
was the sole exporter of the subject products from Argentina and essentially the sole domestic supplier to
the Argentine market.” Acindar is now part of Arcelor of Luxembourg (“Arcelor”), the largest
manufacturer of steel products in the world. Although there are no data available for current capacity,
production, or shipments of barbed wire and barbless wire strand in Argentina, Acindar still produces
barbed wire and barbless wire strand, and the record contains some evidence that Acindar continues to
export these products.°' Acindar has a total melting capacity of 1.35 million metric tons annually; wire
rod rolling capacity of 610,000 metric tons annually; and wire production capacity of 130,000 metric tons
annually.” Based on the facts available, we infer that, at a minimum, the industry in Argentina continues
to have the production capacity identified in the original investigation. Moreover, given Acindar’s total
wiremaking capacity and its ability to shift production from other wire products to subject products, its

* The record shows no imports from Argentina subject to the antidumping duty order in 2003. CR/PR at Table
1-4,

* Original Determination at 8.
Id.
*° CR at I-13; PR at I-10.

$6 CR at I-11 & n.37; PR at I-8 & n.37. There were no subject imports reported for 1985 after June of that year.
In 1986, there were 9 short tons of barbed wire (and no barbless wire strand) imported from Argentina. In 1987,
there were 19 short tons of barbless wire strand (and no barbed wire) imported from Argentina.

57 CR at I-10 to I-11; PRat I-8.

58 CR at I-14; PR at I-11. We note that the record on current imports from Argentina is very limited.
°° CR at I-13; PR at I-10.

© CR at I-13; PR at 1-10.

© CR at I-13 & n.46; PR at I-10 & n.46.

© CR at I-13; PR at I-11.

10