[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5607-5611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2585]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-810, A-583-815]


Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain Welded 
Stainless Steel Pipes From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan

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

ACTION:  Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain 
Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  On July 1, 1999, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders 
on certain welded stainless steel pipes (``pipes'') from the Republic 
of Korea (``Korea'') and Taiwan (64 FR 35588) pursuant to section 
751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). On the 
basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate response 
filed on behalf of a domestic interested party and inadequate response 
(in these cases, no response) from respondent interested parties in 
each of these reviews, the

[[Page 5608]]

Department decided to conduct expedited reviews. As a result of these 
reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the antidumping duty 
orders would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of 
dumping at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Reviews section 
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark D. Young or Melissa G. Skinner, 
Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6397 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

Statute and Regulations

    These reviews were conducted pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of 
the Act. The Department's procedures for conducting sunset reviews are 
set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (``Sunset'') Reviews 
of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 
1998) (``Sunset Regulations''), and 19 CFR part 351 (1999) in general. 
Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the 
Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's 
Policy Bulletin 98:3   Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year 
(``Sunset'') Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; 
Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (``Sunset Policy 
Bulletin'').

Scope

    The merchandise subject to these reviews are certain welded 
austenitic stainless steel pipe that meets the standards and 
specifications set forth by the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (``ASTM'') for the welded form of chromium-nickel pipe 
designated ASTM A-312. The merchandise covered by the scope of these 
orders also includes austenitic welded stainless steel pipes made 
according to the standards of other nations which are comparable to 
ASTM A-312. Pipes are produced by forming stainless steel flat-rolled 
products into a tubular configuration and welding along the seam. Pipes 
are a commodity product generally used as a conduit to transmit liquids 
or gases. Major applications for pipes include, but are not limited to, 
digester lines, blow lines, pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical stock 
lines, brewery process and transport lines, general food processing 
lines, automotive paint lines, and paper process machines. Imports of 
pipes are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') subheadings: 7306.40.5005, 
7306.40.5015, 7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5065, and 7306.40.5085. Although 
these subheadings include both pipes and tubes, the scope of this order 
is limited to welded austenitic stainless steel pipes. Although the 
HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and United States 
Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders 
are dispositive.

History of the Orders

Korea

    The Department published its final affirmative determination of 
sales at less than fair value (``LTFV'') with respect to imports of 
pipes from Korea on November 12, 1992 (57 FR 53693). In this 
determination and subsequent antidumping duty order, the Department 
published two weighted-average dumping margins and an ``all others'' 
rate.\1\ These margins were later amended by the Department pursuant to 
a ruling by the Court of International Trade. \2\ The Department has 
not completed an administrative review of this order since its 
imposition; \3\ however, there has been one changed-circumstance 
review. \4\ The order remains in effect for all Korean manufacturers 
and exporters of the subject merchandise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order and Clarification; Certain Welded 
Stainless Steel Pipes from the Republic of Korea, 57 FR 62301 
(December 30, 1992) (clarifying HTSUS numbers).
    \2\ See Avesta Sheffield, Inc. v. United States, 17 CIT 1212, 
838 F.Supp. 608 (1993); see also Federal Mogul Corp. and the 
Torrington Co. v. United States, 17 CIT 1093, 834 F.Supp. 1391 
(1993); and Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: 
Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea, 60 FR 10064 
(February 23, 1995).
    \3\ However, on December 28, 1999, the Department issued 
preliminary results of review in this case. See Certain Welded ASTM 
A-312 Stainless Steel Pipe from Korea: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 72645 (December 28, 
1999).
    \4\ See Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Korea; Final 
Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 16979 (April 7, 1998) (determination that SeAH Steel 
Corp. (``SeAH'') is the corporate successor to Pusan Steel Pipe Co., 
Ltd. (``Pusan'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taiwan

    On November 12, 1992, the Department issued its final affirmative 
determination of sales at LTFV regarding pipes from Taiwan (Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Welded 
Stainless Steel Pipes from Taiwan, 57 FR 53705 (November 12, 1992). In 
this determination, the Department published four weighted-average 
dumping margins and an ``all others'' rate.\5\ These margins were later 
amended by the Department,\6\ pursuant to a ruling by the Court of 
International Trade.\7\ Since the order was issued, the Department has 
completed four administrative reviews \8\ and one changed-circumstances 
review \9\ with respect to pipes from Taiwan. The order remains in 
effect for all manufacturers and exporters of the subject merchandise 
from Taiwan, other than Chang Mien.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Chang Tieh Industry Co. Ltd. (``Chang Tieh'') currently 
Chang Mien was excluded from the Taiwanese antidumping duty order in 
light of the zero percent margin it received in the final 
determination of sales at LTFV. However, it was listed as one of the 
four respondent companies originally investigated by the Department 
(57 FR 5370); see also Notice of Amended Final Determination and 
Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from 
Taiwan, 59 FR 6619 (February 11, 1994) and Chang Tieh Industry Co. 
v. United States, 840 F.Supp. 141 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1993) (regarding 
the Department's error in imposing conditions upon Chang Tieh's 
exclusion from the antidumping duty order.)
    \6\ Notice of Amended Final Determination, 59 FR 6619.
    \7\ See Chang Tieh Industry Co. 840 F.Supp. at 141.
    \8\ See Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from Taiwan; Final Results 
of Administrative Review, 64 FR 33243 (June 22, 1999) (the first and 
second administrative reviews were jointly published); 62 FR 37543 
(July 14, 1997); 63 FR 38382 (July 16, 1998).
    \9\ See Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From Taiwan; Final 
Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 34147 (June 23, 1998) (determination that Chang Mien 
Industries Co., Ltd (``Chang Mien'') is the corporate successor to 
Chang Tieh).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On July 1, 1999, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the 
antidumping duty orders on pipes from Korea and Taiwan (64 FR 35588), 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. We received Notices of Intent To 
Participate, in each of the two sunset reviews, on behalf of Avesta 
Sheffield Pipe Co., Damascus Tubular Division of Damascus-Bishop Tube 
Co., Davis Pipe Inc., and the United Steel Workers of America (AFL-CIO/
CLC) (collectively ``domestic interested parties''), by July 16, 1999, 
within the deadline specified in Sec. 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset 
Regulations. Pursuant to section 771(9)(C) and (D) of the Act, the 
domestic interested parties claimed interested-party status as U.S. 
manufacturers and workers engaged in the production of domestic like 
products. Moreover, the domestic interested parties stated that they 
have been involved in all segments of these proceedings since their 
inception. The Department received complete substantive responses from 
the domestic

[[Page 5609]]

interested parties by August 2, 1999, within the 30-day deadline 
specified in the Sunset Regulations under Sec. 351.218(d)(3)(i). On 
August 2, 1999, the Department received a waiver of participation, in 
the sunset review of certain welded stainless steel pipes from Korea, 
on behalf of Korea Iron & Steel Association (``KOSA''), SeAH Steel 
Corporation, Ltd. (``SeAH''), and Hyundai Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Hyundai''). 
We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent 
interested party to these proceedings. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department determined to conduct 
expedited, 120-day, reviews of these orders.
    In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the 
Department may treat a review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a 
review of a transition order (i.e., an order in effect on January 1, 
1995). The reviews at issue concern transition orders within the 
meaning of section 751(c)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the 
Department determined that the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty 
orders on pipes from Korea and Taiwan are extraordinarily complicated 
and extended the time limit for completion of the final results of 
these reviews until not later than January 27, 2000, in accordance with 
section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Five-Year 
Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the deadline for this determination was originally January 
27, 2000, due to the Federal Government shutdown on January 25 and 26, 
2000, resulting from inclement weather, the time frame for issuing this 
determination has been extended by one day.

Determination

    In accordance with section 751(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 
conducted these reviews to determine whether revocation of the 
antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. Section 752(c) of the Act provides that, in 
making these determinations, the Department shall consider the 
weighted-average dumping margins determined in the investigation and 
subsequent reviews and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise 
for the period before and the period after the issuance of the 
antidumping duty order, and it shall provide to the International Trade 
Commission (``the Commission'') the magnitude of the margins of dumping 
likely to prevail if the order were revoked.
    The Department's determinations concerning continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins are discussed 
below. In addition, the domestic interested parties' comments with 
respect to continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of 
the margins are addressed within the respective sections below.

Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping

    Drawing on the guidance provided in the legislative history 
accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''), specifically 
the Statement of Administrative Action (``the SAA''), H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, vol. 1 (1994), the House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103-826, pt. 1 
(1994), and the Senate Report, S. Rep. No. 103-412 (1994), the 
Department issued its Sunset Policy Bulletin providing guidance on 
methodological and analytical issues, including the bases for 
likelihood determinations. In its Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department indicated that determinations of likelihood will be made on 
an order-wide basis (See Sunset Policy Bulletin, 63 FR at 18872). In 
addition, the Department indicated that normally it will determine that 
revocation of an antidumping duty order is likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where (a) dumping continued at 
any level above de minimis after the issuance of the order, (b) imports 
of the subject merchandise ceased after the issuance of the order, or 
(c) dumping was eliminated after the issuance of the order and import 
volumes for the subject merchandise declined significantly (see id).
    In addition to considering the guidance on likelihood cited above, 
section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine that revocation of the order would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping where a respondent interested 
party waives its participation in the sunset review. We received a 
waiver of participation, in the sunset review of certain stainless 
steel pipes from Korea, from KOSA, SeAH, and Hyundai on August 2, 1999. 
The Department did not receive a substantive response from any 
respondent interested party. Pursuant to Sec. 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the 
Sunset Regulations, lack of substantive response from respondent 
interested parties constitutes a waiver of participation.
    In their substantive responses, the domestic interested parties 
argue that revocation of these antidumping duty orders would likely 
lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping by Korean and Taiwanese 
producers/manufacturers. The domestic interested parties argue that the 
records in these proceedings demonstrate that respondents reduced their 
sales to the United States after the issuance of the orders and 
continued to dump at the same or at higher rates of dumping. Further, 
they argue that the substantial decline in the volume of imports of 
pipes from Korea and Taiwan following the issuance of the orders 
demonstrates the inability of the producers from subject countries to 
sell in the United States at any significant volume without dumping. 
They support this argument with statistics showing that, since the 
imposition of the orders, respondents have generally reduced their 
shipments to the United States. Therefore, they assert, were the 
antidumping duty orders revoked, it is likely that Korean and Taiwanese 
producers would need to dump in order to sell their pipes in any 
significant quantities in the United States. In conclusion, the 
domestic interested parties state that whether comparing the level of 
imports during the calendar year encompassing the period of 
investigation or the calendar year most immediately preceding the 
order, the dramatic decrease in import levels underscores the 
importance of the orders in the domestic market.

Korea

    With respect to subject merchandise from Korea, the domestic 
interested parties maintain that Korean importers need to dump pipes in 
the U.S. market in order to sell at pre-order volumes. They state that 
the order's extraordinary impact on imports in the period following the 
issuance of the order demonstrates the inability of Korean producers to 
sell pipes in the United States without dumping. The domestic 
interested parties also note that in 1998 Korean imports of the subject 
merchandise jumped to 116 percent of 1991 levels after Pusan purchased 
Sammi Metal Products Co., Ltd. (``Sammi'') pipe division out of 
bankruptcy. Apart from 1998's unusually high level, they argue that 
imports of the subject merchandise from Korea following the issuance of 
the order have never been more than 59 percent of their 1991 level.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic 
Interested Parties regarding pipes from Korea at 16.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5610]]

Taiwan

    The domestic interested parties argue that the imposition of the 
antidumping duty order had a dramatic effect on subject import volumes 
from Taiwan. In addition, they note that post-order imports from Taiwan 
have, on average, remained at 57 percent of the 1991 level. Even in 
1998, the domestic interested parties add, when consumption of 
stainless steel products was at an all time high, imports from Taiwan 
were only 80 percent of 1991 imports. In conclusion they state that a 
comparison of the pre- and post-order import levels supports a 
reasonable inference that dumping would continue absent the 
disciplinary influence of the order.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of the Domestic 
Interested Parties regarding pipes from Taiwan at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If companies continue dumping with the discipline of an order in 
place or imports ceased after the issuance of the order, the Department 
may reasonably infer that dumping would continue or recur if the 
discipline were removed (see section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, the SAA at 890, and the House Report at 63-64). Dumping 
margins above de minimis continue to exist for all producers and 
exporters of pipes from Korea and Taiwan, other than Chang Mien, which 
was excluded from the order on Taiwan.
    Consistent with section 752(c) of the Act, the Department also 
considers the volume of imports before and after issuance of the order. 
As outlined in each respective section above, the domestic interested 
parties argue that a significant decline in the volume of imports of 
the subject merchandise from Korea and Taiwan since the imposition of 
the orders provides further evidence that dumping would continue if the 
orders were revoked. In their substantive responses, the domestic 
interested parties provided statistics demonstrating the decline in 
import volumes of pipes from Korea and Taiwan immediately following the 
issuance of the orders. The Department agrees with the domestic 
interested parties' arguments that imports of the subject merchandise 
fell after the orders were imposed and never regained pre-order 
volumes.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ With the exception of Korean imports of the subject 
merchandise in 1998, which increased to 116 percent of 1991 pre-
order level as noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, in conducting its sunset reviews, the Department 
considered the weighted-average dumping margins and volume of imports 
in determining whether revocation of these antidumping duty orders 
would lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping. Based on this 
analysis, the Department finds that the existence of dumping margins at 
levels above de minimis after the issuance of the orders is highly 
probative of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping. A 
deposit rate above de minimis continues in effect for exports of the 
subject merchandise by all known Korean and Taiwanese manufacturers/
exporters of the subject merchandise.\14\ Therefore, given that dumping 
has continued over the life of the orders, import volumes have declined 
significantly after the imposition of the order, \15\ respondent 
parties have waived participation, and absent argument and evidence to 
the contrary, the Department determines that dumping is likely to 
continue or recur if the orders were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ With the exception of Chang Tieh, now Chang Mien, which was 
excluded from the Taiwanese order.
    \15\ Based on import data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
the U.S. Treasury, the International Trade Commission, and the 
domestic interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Magnitude of the Margin

    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department stated that normally 
it will provide to the Commission the margin that was determined in the 
final determination in the original investigation. Further, for 
companies not specifically investigated or for companies that did not 
begin shipping until after the order was issued, the Department 
normally will provide a margin based on the ``all others'' rate from 
the investigation. See Sunset Policy Bulletin, 63 FR at 18873. 
Exceptions to this policy include the use of a more recently calculated 
margin, where appropriate, and consideration of duty-absorption 
determinations. See id, 63 FR at 18873-74. To date, the Department has 
not issued any duty-absorption findings in any of these cases.
    In their substantive response, the domestic interested parties 
recommended that, consistent with the Sunset Policy Bulletin, the 
Department provide to the Commission the company-specific margins from 
the original investigation, except that the Department should use the 
31.90 percent margin assigned to Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (``Ta 
Chen'') in the first two annual administrative reviews, not the 3.27 
percent found in the original investigation. Moreover, regarding 
companies not reviewed in the original investigations, the domestic 
interested parties suggested that the Department report the ``all 
others'' rates included in the original investigations.
    In the Sunset Policy Bulletin we indicated that, consistent with 
the SAA and the House Report, we may determine, in cases where 
declining (or no) dumping margins are accompanied by steady or 
increasing imports, that a more recently calculated rate reflects that 
companies do not have to dump to maintain market share in the United 
States and, therefore, that dumping is less likely to continue or recur 
if the order was revoked. Alternatively, if a company chooses to 
increase dumping in order to increase or maintain market share, the 
Department may provide the Commission with a more recently calculated 
margin for that company. The Sunset Policy Bulletin provides that we 
will entertain such considerations in response to argument from an 
interested party. Further, we noted that, in determining whether a more 
recently calculated margin is probative of an exporter's behavior 
absent the discipline of an order, the Department normally will 
consider the company's relative market share, with such information to 
be provided by the parties. It is clear, therefore, that in determining 
whether a more recently calculated margin is probative of the behavior 
of exporters were the order revoked, the Department considers company-
specific exports and company-specific margins. Additionally, although 
we expressed a clear preference for market-share information, in past 
sunset reviews, where market-share information was not available, we 
relied on changes in import volumes between the periods before and 
after the issuance of the order. See, e.g., Final Results of Expedited 
Sunset Review: Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden, 63 FR 67658 (December 
8, 1998), and Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain Iron 
Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and the People's Republic of 
China, 64 FR 30310 (June 7, 1999).
    In sunset reviews, although we make likelihood determinations on an 
order-wide basis, we report company-specific margins to the Commission. 
Therefore, it is appropriate that our determinations regarding the 
magnitude of the margin likely to prevail be based on company-specific 
information. Generic arguments that margins decreased over the life of 
the order while, at the same time, exporters' share of the U.S. market 
remained constant do not address the question of whether any particular 
company decreased its margin of dumping while at the same time 
maintaining or increasing market share. In fact, such generic argument 
may disguise company-specific behavior

[[Page 5611]]

demonstrating increased dumping coupled with increased market share.
    Our review of import statistics, provided by the domestic 
interested parties, covering pipes from Korea and Taiwan demonstrated 
that the margins calculated in the original investigations are 
probative of the behavior of Korean and Taiwanese manufacturers/
exporters if the orders were revoked as they are the only margins which 
reflect their actions absent the discipline of the order. However, with 
respect to Ta Chen, the Department disagrees with the domestic 
interested parties. Absent evidence that Ta Chen chose to increase 
dumping in order to maintain or increase market share, the margin 
calculated in the original investigation is the margin the Department 
will provide to the Commission.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Department recently made a preliminary determination to 
revoke the order, with respect to Ta Chen, based on de minimis 
margins in the last three reviews. See Certain Welded Stainless 
Steel Pipe from Taiwan Certain Welded: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 64 FR 71728 (December 22, 1999). 
However, given that Ta Chen waived participation in this sunset 
proceeding and did not provide any information indicating that a 
more recently calculated margin would be more appropriate, the 
Department determined that, consistent with the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin, the margin calculated in the original investigation is 
most likely to prevail if the order were revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Department will report to the Commission the 
company-specific and all others rates from the original investigations 
as contained in the Final Results of Reviews section of this notice.

Final Results of Reviews

    As a result of these reviews, the Department finds that revocation 
of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping at the margins listed below:

                                  Korea
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Margin
                   Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd (now SeAH Steel Corp.)\1\........         2.67
All manufacturers/producers/exporters......................         7.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SeAH is the corporate successor to Pusan, and Pusan had acquired
  certain of Sammi's production assets. See Certain Welded Stainless
  Steel Pipe from Korea; Final Results of Changed-Circumstances
  Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 16979 (April 7, 1998).


                                 Taiwan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer/exporter                  Margin  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chang Tieh Industry Co., Ltd (now Chang      excluded.
 Mien)\1\.
Jaung Yuann Enterprise Co., Ltd............  31.91.
Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd............  3.27.
Yeun Chyang Industrial Co., Ltd............  31.90.
All Others.................................  19.84.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of antidumping duty law the Department concluded
  that Chang Mein is the successor firm to Chang Tieh, and, as such is
  excluded from the order. See Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From
  Taiwan; Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping Duty
  Administrative Review, 63 FR 34147 (June 23, 1998).

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 
Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or 
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to 
comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable 
violation.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 28, 2000.
Holly A. Kuga,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-2585 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P