U.S. Agency to Conduct Sunset Reviews of Duties on Wire Rod
09/09/2013 - The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to conduct full five- year (sunset) reviews concerning the countervailing duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Brazil and the antidumping duty orders on wire rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine.
As a result of these votes, the Commission will conduct full reviews to determine whether revocation of these orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The Commission's notice of institution in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file with the Commission responses that discuss the likely effects of revoking the order under review and provide other pertinent information. Generally within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC's notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.
With regard to Mexico, all six Commissioners concluded that both the domestic group response and the respondent group response for this review were adequate and voted for a full review.
With regard to Brazil, Indonesia, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, all six Commissioners concluded that the domestic group response for these reviews was adequate and that the respondent group responses were inadequate, but that circumstances warranted full reviews.
