Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5607

11One Japanese producer was excluded from the

antidumping duty order based on a de minimis

dumping margin calculated in the Final Less Than

Fair Value Determination. Supra at footnote 1.

12As noted above, one Taiwanese producer/

exporter currently has a de minimis dumping

margin.

Japan, Taiwan, and Korea 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 pipe and tube fittings

from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. The

Department agrees with the domestic

interested parties’ arguments that

imports of the subject merchandise fell

sharply after the orders were imposed

and never regained pre-order volumes.

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 and a reduction in

export volumes 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

(except as indicated in footnotes 11 &

12) known Japanese,11 Korean and

Taiwanese,12 manufacturers/exporters

of the subject merchandise. Therefore,

given that dumping has continued over

the life of the orders, import volumes

have declined significantly after the

imposition of the order, respondent

parties have waived participation in

these reviews, and absent argument and

evidence to the contrary, the

Department determines that dumping is

likely to continue or recur if the orders

were revoked.

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 18873. Exceptions

to this policy include the use of a more

recently calculated margin, where

appropriate, and consideration of dutyabsorption determinations. See id. at

18873–74. To date, the Department has

not issued any duty-absorption findings

in any of these three 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 investigations. 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.

The Department agrees with the

domestic interested parties. The

Department finds that the margins

calculated in the original investigations

are probative of the behavior of

Japanese, 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.

Therefore, the Department will report

to the Commission the companyspecific 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:

JAPAN

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Mie Horo ................................... 65.08

Nippon Benkan Kogyo, K.K ...... 37.24

All others ................................... 49.31

Fuji Acetylene Industries, Co., Ltd.

was excluded from the antidumping

duty order based on a de minimis

dumping margin calculated in the Final

Less Than Fair Value Determination.

See Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Stainless Steel

Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Japan, 53

FR 3227 (February 4, 1988).

KOREA

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

The Asia Bend Co. Ltd. ............ 21.20

All others ................................... 21.20

TAIWAN

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Tachia Yung Ho Machine Industry Co. Ltd. ...................... 76.20

Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co.

Ltd. ........................................ 0.64

Tru-Flow Industrial Co., Ltd. ..... 76.20

All others ................................... 51.01

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. 00–2584 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

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

5608 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

1See Antidumping Duty Order and Clarification;

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipes from the

Republic of Korea, 57 FR 62301 (December 30,

1992) (clarifying HTSUS numbers). 2See 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).

3However, 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).

4See 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’’)).

5Chang 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.)

6Notice of Amended Final Determination, 59 FR

6619.

7See Chang Tieh Industry Co. 840 F.Supp. at 141.

8See 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).

9See 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).

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 Fiveyear (‘‘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 Fiveyear (‘‘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 weightedaverage 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 changedcircumstance review. 4 The order

remains in effect for all Korean

manufacturers and exporters of the

subject merchandise.

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.

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 § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5609

10See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results

of Five-Year Reviews, 64 FR 62167 (November 16,

1999).

11See August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of

the Domestic Interested Parties regarding pipes

from Korea at 16.

interested parties by August 2, 1999,

within the 30-day deadline specified in

the Sunset Regulations under

§ 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

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 weightedaverage 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

§ 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

5610 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

12See August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of

the Domestic Interested Parties regarding pipes

from Taiwan at 15.

13With the exception of Korean imports of the

subject merchandise in 1998, which increased to

116 percent of 1991 pre-order level as noted above.

14With the exception of Chang Tieh, now Chang

Mien, which was excluded from the Taiwanese

order.

15Based on import data from the U.S. Department

of Commerce, the U.S. Treasury, the International

Trade Commission, and the domestic interested

parties.

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

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 preorder volumes.13

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.

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 orderwide 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 companyspecific 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5611

16The 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.

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

Therefore, the Department will report

to the Commission the companyspecific 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

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Pusan Steel Pipe Co., Ltd (now

SeAH Steel Corp.)1 ............... 2.67

All manufacturers/producers/exporters ................................... 7.00

1SeAH 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 Mien)1.

excluded.

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.

1For 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–533–063]

Certain Iron-metal Castings From

India: Amended Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review Pursuant to Settlement

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to final

results of countervailing duty

administrative review.

SUMMARY: On January 18, 1991, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published in the Federal

Register its final results of

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

iron-metal castings from India for the

period 1986 (56 FR 1976). Pursuant to

a settlement agreement, the Department

has recalculated the countervailing duty

rates. The final countervailing duty rates

for this review period are listed below

in the Final Results of Review section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Copyak, Office 6, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 18, 1991, the Department

published the final results of its

administrative review of the

countervailing duty order on certain

iron-metal castings from India for the

period January 1, 1986 through

December 31, 1986. See Final Results of

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings

from India, 56 FR 1976. Subsequently,

respondents challenged the final results

before the Court of International Trade

(CIT). The primary issue involved the

calculation of the program rates for the

subsidies provided under India’s

International Price Reimbursement

Scheme (IPRS). The IPRS is a program

through which the Government of India

(GOI) provided rebates to castings

exporters that purchased domesticallyproduced pig iron at prices set by the

GOI. According to the GOI, these rebates

were calculated to equal the differences

between the higher domestic prices

actually paid and the lower alternative

prices available from sources outside of

India.

As the IPRS was also the subject of

litigation for the review period 1985 in

Creswell v. United States, Consolidated

Court No. 91–01–00012 (Creswell),

litigation for the review period 1986 was

stayed pending finalization of Creswell.

After the CIT affirmed the Department’s

remand determination for the 1985

administrative review (see Creswell, slip

op. 98–139 (CIT Sept. 29, 1998)), the

Department published a notice of

amended final results in accordance

with that opinion. See Certain Ironmetal Castings from India: Amended

Final Results of Countervailing Duty

Administrative Review In Accordance

With Decision Upon Remand, 63 FR

67858 (December 9, 1998). In lieu of

pursuing further litigation with respect

to the administrative review of the

review period 1986, the parties have

entered into a settlement agreement.

The parties agreed to countervailing

duty rates that were calculated based on

the methodology approved by the CIT in

Creswell. On December 10, 1999, the