of Public Affairs
Final Determinations in the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Investigations on Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, and Ukraine
On Monday, August 26, 2002, the Department announced the final determinations in the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on imports of carbon and alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from Brazil (AD&CVD), Canada (AD&CVD), Germany (AD&CVD), Indonesia (AD), Mexico (AD), Moldova (AD), Trinidad & Tobago (AD&CVD), Turkey (CVD), and Ukraine (AD). The Department found that producers/exporters from Brazil, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, and Ukraine have sold their product in the United States at less than fair value. The Department also found that producers/exporters from Brazil, Canada, and Germany have received countervailable subsidies, while Trinidad & Tobago, and Turkey have not.
Background: On August 31, 2001, U.S. producers
of wire rod filed petitions with the Department of Commerce ("the
Department") requesting the initiation of antidumping ("AD")
and countervailing duty ("CVD") investigations. On September
24, 2001, the Department initiated investigations on imports of wire
rod from Brazil, Canada, Germany and Trinidad & Tobago (both AD
and CVD), Turkey (CVD only) and Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, South
Africa, Ukraine and Venezuela (AD only). On October 15, 2001, the International
Trade Commission ("ITC") issued preliminary determinations
finding that there is a reasonable indication that imports of wire rod
from the above-mentioned countries, with the exception of Egypt, South
Africa, and Venezuela, are causing material injury, or threatening to
cause material injury, to a U.S. industry.
Petitioners: The petitions in this investigation were filed on behalf of U.S. steel wire rod producers: Co-Steel Raritan, Inc., GS Industries, Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and North Star Steel Texas, Inc.
Product Use: Steel wire rod is used in producing steel wire, which is used to make several downstream products such as rope, wire mesh, wire strand and hangers, as well as nails and other fasteners.
Next Steps: Once the Department publishes its final determination, usually about one week after our announcement, the ITC will have 45 days to make its final injury determination. In this case, we expect the ITC's vote in October 2002. If the ITC makes final affirmative determinations of injury, the Department will issue antidumping and countervailing duty orders.
Final Antidumping Margins/Countervailing Subsidy Rates:
Volume and Value of Imports:
VALUE (thousands of U.S. dollars)
(Source: ITC Dataweb)
Treatment of 201 Duties:
In their case briefs, interested parties
raised issues pertaining to the proper methodology for the allocation
of duties collected under section
201 of the Trade Act of 1974 in the
calculation of export price (EP) and constructed export price (CEP).
Before addressing the proper allocation methodology, the Department noted
it had never addressed the broader issue of the legal basis for deducting
section 201 duties from U.S. price. Therefore, on August 13, 2002, the
Department issued a preliminary decision
memorandum addressing this issue and inviting interested parties
in this investigation to comment on the matter. In response, the Department
received comments from the petitioners and the respondent in this investigation,
as well as other parties expressing an interest in
what they consider a cross-cutting issue that could affect other
cases. As a procedural matter, most
parties objected that the Department had raised this broader issue too
late in the proceeding to allow for sufficient analysis and comment, that
the Department had allowed insufficient time to comment, and that there
was no opportunity
for rebuttal or hearing.
As a legal matter, while
the respondent argued that section 201 duties should not be deducted from
U.S. price, most other parties argued that deducting section 201 duties
was in full accord with the antidumping statute and consistent with Department
As a consequence of the comments received,
we have determined that we should provide a greater
opportunity for concerned parties to be heard.
As a result, we are not addressing the merits here.
For purposes of the final determination in this investigation, we
are invoking the discretionary authority
set forth in section 777(A)(a)(2) of the Act
to "decline to take into account adjustments which are insignificant in
relation to the price or value of the merchandise." Section 351.413 of
the Department's Regulations defines "insignificant adjustments"as "any
individual adjustments having an ad
valorem effect of less than 0.33 percent, or any group of adjustments
having an ad valorem effect
of less than 1.0 percent, of the export price, constructed export price,
or normal value, as the case may be." In this case, an adjustment for
section 201 duties would have an ad
valorem effect substantially
less than 0.33 percent of the export price and constructed export price,
no matter how such duties are allocated. In addition, section
201 duties in this case were paid on an extremely limited number of import
transactions, and the effect on the overall dumping margin would be inconsequential.
For further details, see Analysis
Memorandum from the Team to the File, dated August 23, 2002.
Petitioners filed a critical circumstances
allegation regarding imports of steel wire rod from Brazil, Germany, Mexico,
Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago and Ukraine. On February 11, 2002, we preliminarily
determined that critical circumstances exist for imports of steel wire
rod from Germany, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine. The
Department has found for the final investigation that circumstances do
not exist for imports from Mexico and Trinidad & Tobago.
However, critical circumstances do
exist for imports from Germany, Moldova, and Ukraine. If
the ITC concurs that critical circumstances exist for imports from these
countries, antidumping and countervailing duties will be applied retroactively
to before the preliminary determination.
Non-Market Economy Inquiries:
In the investigations involving Ukraine
and Moldova, parties had requested revocation of nonmarket economy status.
However, the Government of Moldova did not support the request for the
region where the producer is located, and we have deferred our decision
regarding Ukraine's non-market economy status, as we need additional time
to evaluate the information provided on the record of the investigation.
Current 201 on Steel Wire Rod:
There is an outstanding Section 201 safeguard action on global imports of steel wire rod, implemented in February 2000 and set to expire in February 2003. Imports from Canada and Mexico were not initially included in the relief, as the ITC found that these countries did not meet special NAFTA criteria for inclusion in a global safeguard action. However, on August 22, at the request of petitioners, the ITC determined that a surge in imports of steel wire rod from Canada and Mexico is undermining the effectiveness of the import relief that was provided to the U.S. industry. The President, nonetheless, decided not to extend the relief to imports from Mexico and Canada. Since there is a preexisting 201 action on steel wire rod, these products were not included as part of the President's steel initiative within the Section 201 on steel imports.
Contact Us |
About ITA |
Site Map | Privacy Statement | Disclaimer
U.S.Department of Commerce | International Trade Administration