5604 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

determination. If our final antidumping

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the United States

industry. The deadline for that ITC

determination would be the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after the date

of our final determination.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later March 16, 2000.

Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five

days after the deadline for submission of

case briefs. A list of authorities used, a

table of contents, and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Executive summaries should be limited

to five pages total, including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 135 days

after the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and

published pursuant to sections 733(d)

and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2583 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–702, A–580–813, and A–583–816]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Reviews: Certain Stainless Steel ButtWeld Pipe and Tube Fittings From

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Reviews: Certain

Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube

Fittings from Japan, South Korea and

Taiwan.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on certain

stainless steel butt-weld pipe and tube

fittings (‘‘pipe and tube fittings’’) from

Japan, South 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

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 products covered by these

reviews include certain stainless steel

butt-weld pipe and tube fittings. These

fittings are used in piping systems for

chemical plants, pharmaceutical plants,

food processing facilities, waste

treatment facilities, semiconductor

equipment applications, nuclear power

plants and other areas. The subject

merchandise are currently classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item

number 7307.23.00.00. The HTSUS item

number is provided for convenience and

customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

With respect to the order on subject

imports from Japan and Taiwan, the

Department has made several scope

rulings. The following products were

determined to be within the scope of the

order:

Product within scope Importer Citation

Superclean or ultraclean pipe fittings from Japan ... Benkan Corporation ............................ 56 FR 1801 (January 17, 1991).

A774 type stainless steel pipe fittings from Taiwan Tachia Yung Ho .................................. 58 FR 28556 (May 14, 1993).

Cast butt-weld pipe fittings from Taiwan .................. Eckstrom Industries ............................ Eckstrom Ind. v. United States, Court No. 97–10–

01913, Slip. Op., 99–99 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept.

20, 1999).

The following products were determined to be outside the scope of the order:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5605

1One of the three companies investigated, Fuji

Acetylene Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fuji’’), was

excluded from the antidumping duty order, since

the Department found that it had a de minimis

dumping margin.

2See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless

Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings from Japan,

53 FR 9787 (March 25, 1988).

3See Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube

Fittings from Japan; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 14922 (April

12, 1991); 56 FR 20592 (May 6, 1991); 57 FR 46372

(October 8, 1992); 59 FR 12240 (March 16, 1994).

4See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless

Steel Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings from Korea,

58 FR 11029 (February 23, 1993).

5See Amended Final Determination and

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Stainless Steel

Butt-Weld Pipe and Tube Fittings from Taiwan, 58

FR 33250 (June 16, 1993).

6See Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe

Fittings From Taiwan: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

67855 (December 9, 1998) ( 3rd review); 65 FR 2116

(January 13, 2000) (1st & 2nd review).

7See Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of

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

1999).

Product outside scope Importer Citation

Certain gasket raised face seal sleeves and certain

stainless steel ‘‘Fine-fit’’ tube fittings imported

from Japan.

Fujikin of America, Inc ........................ 60 FR 54212 (October 20, 1995).

Stainless steel tube fittings with non-welded end

connection, and other products from Taiwan.

Top Line Process Equipment Corporation.60 FR 54213 (October 20, 1995).

Primet joint metal seal fittings and primet joint weld

fittings from Japan.

Daido ................................................... 61 FR 5533 (February 13, 1996).

Sleeves of clean vacuum couplings and superclean microfittings from Japan.Benkan ................................................ 61 FR 5533 (February 13, 1996).

Superclean fittings from Japan ................................. Benkan UCT Corporation ................... 61 FR 40194 (August 1, 1996).

These reviews cover imports from all manufacturers and exporters of pipe and tube fittings from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

History of the Orders

Japan

The Department published its final

affirmative determination of sales at less

than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) with respect to

imports of pipe and tube fittings from

Japan on February 4, 1988 (53 FR 3227).

In this determination, the Department

published three weighted-average

dumping margins (which included a de

minimis margin 1) and an ‘‘all others’’

rate. The Department published its

antidumping duty order on pipe and

tube fittings from Japan on March 25,

1988.2 The Department has conducted

four administrative reviews of this order

since its imposition.3 In each of the four

reviews we calculated one companyspecific margin. The order remains in

effect for all manufacturers and

exporters of the subject merchandise

from Japan, other than Fuji who was

excluded from the antidumping duty

order.

Korea

The Department published its final

affirmative determination of sales at

LTFV with respect to imports of pipe

and tube fittings from Korea on

December 29, 1992 (57 FR 61881). In

this determination, the Department

published weighted-average dumping

margins for one company and an ‘‘all

others’’ rate. The Department published

its antidumping duty order on pipe and

tube fittings from Korea on February 23,

1993.4 The Department has not

conducted an administrative review of

this order since its imposition. The

order remains in effect for all

manufacturers and exporters of the

subject merchandise from Korea.

Taiwan

On May 14, 1993, the Department

issued its final affirmative

determination of sales at LTFV

regarding pipe and tube fittings from

Taiwan (58 FR 28556). In this

determination, the Department

published weighted-average dumping

margins for three companies and an ‘‘all

others’’ rate. The Department

subsequently published an amended

final determination and antidumping

duty order on June 16, 1993.5 Since the

order was issued, the Department has

completed three administrative reviews

with respect to pipe and tube fittings

from Taiwan.6 The order remains in

effect for all manufacturers and

exporters of the subject merchandise

from Taiwan.

Background

On July 1, 1999, the Department

initiated sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on pipe and

tube fittings from Japan, 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 three sunset reviews, on behalf of

Alloy Piping Products, Inc. (‘‘Alloy’’),

Flowline Division of Markovitz

Enterprises, Inc. (‘‘Flowline’’), Gerlin,

Inc. (‘‘Gerlin’’), and Taylor Forge

Stainless, Inc. (‘‘Taylor’’) (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) of the Act, the domestic

interested parties claimed interestedparty status as U.S. manufacturers

whose workers are engaged in the

production of domestic like products.

Moreover, the domestic interested

parties stated that they have been

involved in these proceedings since

their inception. The Department

received complete substantive responses

from the domestic interested parties by

August 2, 1999, within the 30-day

deadline specified in the Sunset

Regulations under § 351.218(d)(3)(i). 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), 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 pipe and tube fittings from Japan,

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.7

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

5606 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

8See August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of the

Domestic Interested Parties regarding pipe and tube

fittings from Japan at 12.

9See August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of the

Domestic Interested Parties regarding pipe and tube

fittings from Korea at 13.

10See August 2, 1999, Substantive Response of

the Domestic Interested Parties regarding pipe and

tube fittings from Taiwan at 14.

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, 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. In these instant reviews,

the Department did not receive a

substantive response from any

respondent interested party. Pursuant to

§ 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset

Regulations, this 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 Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese,

producers/manufacturers. They argue

further that since the imposition of the

antidumping duty orders, most

respondents have continued to dump in

the U.S. market and have reduce their

sales of pipe and tube fittings

dramatically. The domestic interested

parties argue that this demonstrates the

inability of the producers from subject

countries to sell in the United States at

any significant volume without

dumping. Therefore, they assert, were

the antidumping duty orders revoked, it

is likely that Japanese, Korean, and

Taiwanese producers would need to

dump in order to sell their pipe and

tube fittings in any significant quantities

in the United States.

Japan

The domestic interested parties argue

that the imposition of the antidumping

duty order had a dramatic effect on

subject import volumes from Japan.

They indicate that in the years following

the order, Japanese imports have

averaged 13 percent of their pre-order

levels. Moreover, they assert, the

dumping margins for Japanese

manufacturers continue at significant

levels. In sum, the domestic interested

parties argue, the dramatic decline in

import volumes following the

imposition of the order in conjunction

with continued margins of dumping

indicates that dumping by Japanese pipe

and tube fitting producers is likely to

continue or recur in the event of

revocation of the order.8

Korea

With respect to subject merchandise

from Korea, the domestic interested

parties maintain that, in the year the

order was imposed, imports from Korea

fell to 4,228 pounds from approximately

523,619 pounds the year before. They

argue further that, in the years following

the imposition of the order, average

import volumes of the subject

merchandise were more than 90 percent

lower than in the years preceeding the

issuance of the order. Therefore, the

domestic interested parties argue that

the near cessation of imports from Korea

demonstrates that Korean manufacturers

need to dump pipe and tube fittings in

the U.S. market in order to sell at preorder volumes. To support this

conclusion the domestic interested

parties assert that dumping margins for

all Korean manufacturers of pipe and

tube fittings are extraordinarily high at

21.2 percent. Yet, they contend, Korean

manufacturers never availed themselves

of the administrative review process to

demonstrate that their dumping has

ceased or abated.9

Taiwan

The domestic interested parties assert

that only one Taiwanese respondent has

had dumping margins below de minimis

levels since the issuance of the order.

They argue that, following the issuance

of the order, imports from Taiwan

dropped to a level far below their preorder level and have never been more

than 50 percent of their pre-order level.

The domestic interested parties

conclude that Taiwanese importers need

to dump pipe and tube fittings in the

U.S. market in order to sell at pre-order

volumes. To corroborate this

conclusion, the domestic interested

parties note that the dumping margins

for all but one Taiwanese manufacturer

are extraordinarily high and yet, they

have never availed themselves of the

administrative review process to

demonstrate that their dumping has

abated.10

General Discussion

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 and the SAA at 890, and the

House Report at 63–64. As pointed out

above, dumping margins at levels above

de minimis continue to exist for

shipments of the subject merchandise

from Japan, Korea, and 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

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