6156 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

Copper—0.75% maximum

Columbium—8 times the carbon level

minimum—1.0% maximum

Initiation and Preliminary Results of

Changed Circumstance AD Review, and

Intent To Revoke Order in Part

At the request of Watanabe and

Byram, in accordance with sections

751(d)(1) and 751(b)(1) of the Act and

section 351.216 of the Department’s

regulations, the Department is initiating

a changed circumstance review of

stainless steel sheet and strip from Japan

to determine whether partial revocation

of the AD order is warranted with

respect to the stainless steel sheet and

strip subject to this request. Section

782(h)(2) of the Act and section

351.222(g)(1)(i) of the Department’s

regulations provide that the Department

may revoke an order (in whole or in

part) if it determines that producers

accounting for substantially all of the

production of the domestic like product

have no further interest in the order, in

whole or in part. In addition, in the

event the Department determines that

expedited action is warranted, section

351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the regulations

permits the Department to combine the

notices of initiation and preliminary

results.

In accordance with section 751(b) of

the Act and sections 351.222(g)(l)(i) and

351.221(c)(3) of the Department’s

regulations, we are initiating this

changed circumstance review and have

determined that expedited action is

warranted. Our decision to expedite this

review stems from the domestic

industry’s lack of interest in applying

the AD order to the specific stainless

steel sheet and strip covered by this

request. Additionally, in accordance

with section 351.216(a) we find that the

petitioners’ affirmative statement of no

interest constitutes good cause for the

conduct of this review.

Based on the expression of no interest

by petitioners and absent any objection

by any other domestic interested parties,

we have preliminarily determined that

substantially all of the domestic

producers of the like product have no

interest in continued application of the

AD order to the stainless steel sheet and

strip subject to this request. Therefore,

we are notifying the public of our intent

to revoke, in part, the AD order as it

relates to imports of the merchandise

described above from Japan.

Public Comment

Interested parties may submit case

briefs and/or written comments no later

than 14 days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written

comments, limited to issues raised in

such briefs or comments, may be filed

no later than 21 days after the date of

publication. The Department will issue

the final results of this changed

circumstance review, which will

include the results of its analysis raised

in any such written comments, no later

than 270 days after the date on which

this review was initiated, or within 45

days if all parties agree to our

preliminary determination. See section

351.216(e) of the Department’s

regulations.

If final revocation occurs, we will

instruct the U.S. Customs Service to end

the suspension of liquidation and to

refund, with interest, any estimated AD

duties collected for all unliquidated

entries of the specific stainless steel

sheet and strip covered by this request

from Japan. The current requirement for

a cash deposit of estimated AD duties

on all subject merchandise will

continue unless and until it is modified

pursuant to the final results of this

changed circumstance review.

This initiation of review and notice

are in accordance with sections 751(b)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)) and 19

CFR 351.216, 351.221, and 351.222.

Dated: January 24, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2853 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–533–806, A–570–815]

Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Reviews: Sulfanilic Acid From India

and The People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Expedited Sunset Reviews: Sulfanilic

Acid from India and The People’s

Republic of China.

SUMMARY: On October 1, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) initiated sunset reviews of

the antidumping duty orders on

sulfanilic acid from India and The

People’s Republic of China (‘‘China’’)

(64 FR 53320) 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 an 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 likely

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, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3207 or (202) 482–

1560, respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 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 orders

are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which

include technical (or crude) sulfanilic

acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid

and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid

(sodium sulfanilate). The principal

differences between the grades are the

undesirable quantities of residual

aniline and alkali insoluble materials

present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades

are available as dry free flowing

powders. Technical sulfanilic acid

contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and

1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Refined sulfanilic acid

contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic

acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and

0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials. Sodium salt of sulfanilic acid

(sodium sulfanilate) is a granular or

crystalline material containing 75

percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5

percent maximum aniline, and 0.25

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6157

1HTSUS subheadings for sulfanilic acid and

sodium salts of sulfanilic acid have changed since

the issuance of this order. The petitioner asserts

that the HTSUS subheading for sulfanilic acid was

2921.42.24.20 in 1993 and has remained at

2921.42.22 since 1994.

2See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order;

Sulfanilic Acid from India, 58 FR 12025 (March 2,

1993).

3See Antidumping Duty Order: Sulfanilic Acid

from the People’s Republic of China, 57 FR 37524

(August 19, 1992).

4See Sulfanilic Acid from the People’s Republic

of China: Final Results of Administrative Review,

61 FR 53711 (October 15, 1996); 61 FR 53702

(October 15, 1996); 62 FR 48597 (September 16,

1997); 63 FR 63834 (November 17, 1998).

percent maximum alkali insoluble

materials based on the equivalent

sulfanilic acid content. The

merchandise is classifiable under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings

2921.42.22 and 2921.42.24.20.1

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of these orders are dispositive.

These reviews cover imports from all

manufacturers and exporters of

sulfanilic acid from India and China.

History of the Orders

India

The Department published its final

affirmative determination of sales at less

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

imports of sulfanilic acid from India on

January 8, 1993 (58 FR 3251). In this

determination, the Department

published a weighted-average dumping

margin for all manufacturers/producers/

exporters of 114.8 percent. However,

consistent with section 772(d)(1)(D) of

the Act, which prohibits assessing

antidumping duties on the portion of

the margin attributable to an export

subsidy, we established, for duty

deposit purposes, an estimated

antidumping duty deposit rate of 71.09

percent. The Department issued its

antidumping duty order on sulfanilic

acid from India on March 2, 1993.2 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 India.

China

On July 6, 1992, the Department

published its affirmative final

determination of sales at LTFV

regarding sulfanilic acid from China (57

FR 29705). The Department issued its

antidumping duty order on August 19,

1992.3 In this determination, the

Department published weighted-average

dumping margins for one company and

an ‘‘all others’’ rate. Since the order was

issued, the Department has conducted

four administrative reviews with respect

to sulfanilic acid from China.4 The order

remains in effect for all manufacturers

and exporters of the subject

merchandise from China.

Background

On October 1, 1999, the Department

initiated sunset reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic

acid from India and China (64 FR

53320), pursuant to section 751(c) of the

Act. We received a Notice of Intent to

Participate, in each of the two sunset

reviews, on behalf of National Ford

Chemical Company (‘‘NFC’’), by October

15, 1999, within the deadline specified

in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Sunset

Regulations. Pursuant to section

771(9)(C) of the Act, NFC claimed

interested party status as a U.S.

manufacturer whose workers are

engaged in the production of domestic

like products. Moreover, NFC claims

that it was a petitioner in the original

investigation and, with respect to China,

a domestic interested party in each of

the six initiated administrative reviews.

The Department received a complete

substantive response from NFC, in each

of the two sunset reviews, by November

1, 1999, within the 30-day deadline

specified in the Sunset Regulations

under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). We did

not receive a substantive response from

any respondent interested party to 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.

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

shall provide to the International Trade

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) the

magnitude of the margins of dumping

likely to prevail if the orders were

revoked.

The Department’s determinations

concerning continuation or recurrence

of dumping and the magnitude of the

margins are discussed below. In

addition, NFC’s comments with respect

to continuation or recurrence of

dumping and the magnitude of the

margins are addressed below.

Continuation or Recurrence of

Dumping

Drawing on the guidance provided in

the legislative history accompanying the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’), specifically the Statement of

Administrative Action (‘‘the SAA’’),

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1 (1994), the

House Report, H.R. Rep. No. 103–826,

pt.1 (1994), and the Senate Report, S.

Rep. No. 103–412 (1994), the

Department issued its Sunset Policy

Bulletin providing guidance on

methodological and analytical issues,

including the bases for likelihood

determinations. In its Sunset Policy

Bulletin, the Department indicated that

determinations of likelihood will be

made on an order-wide basis (see

section II.A.2). In addition, the

Department indicated that it normally

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 section II.A.3).

In addition to 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 reviews, the

Department did not receive a

substantive response from any

respondent interested party. Under

section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Sunset

Regulations, this constitutes a waiver of

participation.

In its substantive response, NFC

argues that the substantial decline (or

cessation, with respect to India) in the

volume of imports of sulfanilic acid

from the subject countries following the

issuance of the order demonstrates the

inability of the producers from subject

countries to sell in the United States at

any significant volume without

dumping. NFC argues further that

revocation of the antidumping duty

orders in these sunset reviews would

likely lead to a continuation or

recurrence of dumping by Indian and

Chinese producers/manufacturers. NFC

6158 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

5See November 1, 1999, Substantive Response of

NFC, regarding sulfanilic acid from India at 9.

6See November 1, 1999, Substantive Response of

NFC, regarding sulfanilic acid from China at 9.

7Nevertheless, in 1996–1999 import volumes

dropped well below pre-order levels.

8 In 1994 Indian manufacturers exported 20,000

kg. of sulfanilic acid to the United States, and

36,000 kg. in 1996. Only since 1997 have the

imports of the subject merchandise ceased

completely.

supports this argument with evidence

showing that, since the imposition of

the orders, respondents have generally

reduced (ceased with respect to Indian

imports) their shipments to the United

States. Therefore, NFC asserts it is likely

that Indian and Chinese producers

would need to dump in order to sell

sulfanilic acid in any significant

quantities in the United States.

India

With respect to subject merchandise

from India, NFC maintains that, in the

years preceding the order, India was a

major foreign supplier of the subject

merchandise to the U.S. market.

Following the issuance of the order, it

asserts, Indian imports have ceased

completely. Furthermore, NFC

comments, deposit rates for Indian

manufacturers of sulfanilic acid

continue to exist at 71.09 percent. In

sum, it argues, cessation of imports

following the imposition of the order

and high dumping margins, in

conjunction with the fact that Indian

manufactures never availed themselves

of the administrative review process to

demonstrate that dumping has ceased or

abated, provides clear evidence that the

Indian producers are incapable of

selling at fair value in the U.S. market.5

China

NFC argues that the imposition of the

antidumping duty order had a dramatic

effect on subject import volumes from

China. NFC states that in the years

following the order, imports of the

subject merchandise from China

dropped nearly 40 percent. Moreover,

NFC asserts, import volumes of the

subject sulfanilic acid from China have

remained low, relative to the pre-order

levels. Furthermore, NFC mentions, that

there has been a reduction in the

Chinese producers’ share of U.S.

domestic consumption of sulfanilic

acid. This decline in imports and share

of U.S. domestic consumption, NFC

adds, coupled with above de minimis

dumping margins demonstrates that

Chinese manufacturers cannot maintain

a presence in the U.S. market without

dumping.6

As discussed in section II.A.3 of the

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the SAA at 890,

and the House Report at 63–64, if

companies continue dumping with the

discipline of an order in place, 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. As

pointed out above, dumping margins

above de minimis continue to exist for

shipments of the subject merchandise

from India and China.

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 section above, NFC argues that a

significant decline in the volume of

imports of the subject merchandise from

China and a cessation of imports with

regard to India since the imposition of

the orders, provides further evidence

that dumping would continue or recur

if the orders were revoked. In its

substantive response, NFC provided

statistics demonstrating the decline/

cessation in import volumes of

sulfanilic acid from China and India.

The Department disagrees, in part, with

NFC’s arguments that Chinese imports

of the subject merchandise fell sharply

after the order was imposed and never

regained pre-order volumes. In 1992 and

1993 the import volume of the subject

merchandise did significantly drop

below pre-order levels. However, in

1994 and 1995 import levels of the

subject merchandise exceeded pre-order

volumes.7 The Department also

disagrees, in part, with NFC’s assertion

that Indian imports of the subject

merchandise ceased completely since

the issuance of the order.8

As noted above, in conducting its

sunset reviews, the Department

considers the weighted-average

dumping margins and volume of

imports when determining whether

revocation of an antidumping duty

order would lead to the continuation or

recurrence of dumping. Based on this

analysis, the Department finds that the

existence of dumping margins above de

minimis levels and a reduction/

cessation in export volumes after the

issuance of the order is highly probative

of the likelihood of continuation or

recurrence of dumping. A deposit rate

above a de minimis level continues for

exports of the subject merchandise by

all known Indian and Chinese

manufacturers/exporters. Therefore,

given that dumping has continued and

import volumes have declined

significantly or ceased after the

imposition of the order, the respondent

interested parties 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 it normally 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 section

II.B.1 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.)

Exceptions to this policy include the

use of a more recently calculated

margin, where appropriate, and

consideration of duty absorption

determinations. (See sections II.B.2 and

3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin.) We note

that, to date, the Department has not

issued any duty absorption findings in

any of these cases.

In its substantive response, NFC

recommends that the Department

adhere to its general practice of

selecting dumping margins from the

original investigation. Regarding

companies not reviewed in the original

investigations, NFC suggests that the

Department report to the Commission

the ‘‘all others’’ rate published in the

original investigations. Specifically,

NFC recommends that the Department

report a margin of 71.09 percent for all

manufacturers/producers/exporters

under the order on India and with

respect to the order on China, 19.14

percent for China National Chemicals

Import & Export Corporation, Hebei

Branch and 85.20 for all other

producers. Since the Department has

not conducted an administrative review

of sulfanilic acid from India, and

imports of Chinese and Indian sulfanilic

acid to the United States have decreased

dramatically since the issuance of the

order, the Department has decided that

it would not be appropriate to use a

more recently calculated rate.

The Department agrees, with NFC that

the margins calculated in the original

investigations are probative of the

behavior of Indian and Chinese

producers/exporters if the orders were

revoked, as they are the only margins

which reflect their actions absent the

discipline of the orders. 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. As noted above, in the original

investigation the Department

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6159

determined the margin of dumping for

all manufacturers/producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise from India to

be 114.80 percent, and established an

antidumping duty deposit rate of 71.09

percent after taking into account the

43.71 percent export subsidy rate.

Therefore, we will report to the

Commission the margins 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 be

likely lead to continuation or recurrence

of dumping at the margins listed below:

India

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

All Manufacturers/Producers/Exporters ............. * 114.80

* (71.09 as adjusted for CVD)

China

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

China National Chemicals

Import & Export Corporation, Hebei Branch .......... 19.14

All Others ............................ 85.20

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.

These five-year (‘‘sunset’’) reviews

and notice are in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: January 31, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2839 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–489–501]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel

Pipe and Tube From Turkey

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the

respondent, the Department of

Commerce is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipe and tube from

Turkey. This review covers shipments

of this merchandise to the United States

during the period May 1, 1998, through

April 30, 1999.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

our final results, we will instruct the

U.S. Customs Service to assess

antidumping duties equal to the

differences between the United States

price and the normal value.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on the preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with each

argument: (1) a statement of the issue;

and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Layton or Charles Riggle, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office 5, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0371 or

(202) 482–0650, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to Department of

Commerce (the Department) regulations

are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

Background

On May 15, 1986, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

antidumping duty order on certain

welded carbon steel pipe and tube from

Turkey (51 FR 17784). On May 19, 1999

(64 FR 27235), we published in the

Federal Register the notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of this order

covering the period May 1, 1998,

through April 30, 1999, hereinafter

referred to as the POR. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on May 28,

1999, The Borusan Group (Borusan), a

producer and exporter of certain welded

carbon steel pipe and tube, requested a

review. On June 30, 1999, we published

the notice of initiation of this

antidumping duty administrative review

covering the period May 1, 1998,

through April 30, 1999 (64 FR 35124).

We are now conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include circular welded non-alloy steel

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters

(16 inches) in outside diameter,

regardless of wall thickness, surface

finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or

end finish (plain end, beveled end,

threaded and coupled). Those pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard

pipe, though they may also be called

structural or mechanical tubing in

certain applications. Standard pipes and

tubes are intended for the low pressure

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,

air, and other liquids and gases in

plumbing and heating systems, air

conditioner units, automatic sprinkler

systems, and other related uses.

Standard pipe may also be used for light

load-bearing and mechanical

applications, such as for fence tubing,

and for protection of electrical wiring,

such as conduit shells.

The scope is not limited to standard

pipe and fence tubing, or those types of

mechanical and structural pipe that are

used in standard pipe application. All

carbon steel pipes and tubes within the

physical description outlined above are

included in the scope of this review,

except for line pipe, oil country tubular

goods, boiler tubing, cold-drawn or

cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and

tube hollows for redraws, finished

scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

of the United States (HTSUS)

subheadings: 7306.30.10.00,

7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32,

7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55,

7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs