[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62758-62759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30958]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-489-501]
Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From
Turkey
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 25, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle or Dennis McClure,
Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20230; telephone (202) 482-0650 or (202) 482-3530, respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Background
On October 2, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published the final results of its administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube
from Turkey (62 FR 51629). The period of review (POR) is May 1, 1993,
through April 30, 1994.
On October 16, 1997, the Borusan Group (Borusan) filed two timely
clerical error allegations. On October 21, 1997, Allied Tube & Conduit
and Wheatland Tube Company (petitioners) replied to the allegations
made by Borusan, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 353.28. On October 24, 1997,
Borusan filed unsolicited and untimely comments in response to the
petitioners' October 21, 1997, submission. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
353.31, we did not consider Borusan's October 24, 1997, submission in
our analysis, since it was submitted after the October 16, 1997,
deadline for submitting comments on ministerial error allegations.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain welded
carbon steel pipe and tube products with an outside diameter of 0.375
inch or more but not over 16 inches, of any wall thickness. 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. These products,
commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipe and tube, are
produced to various American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
specifications, most notably A-120, A-53, or A-135.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Allegations of Clerical Errors
Allegation 1: Inclusion of Inventory Carrying Costs in Constructed
Value (CV)
Borusan alleges that because Borusan's sales to the United States
were purchase price (PP) sales the Department should not have included
inventory carrying costs in the calculation of CV.
The petitioners argue that Borusan's allegation is methodological,
not ministerial, in nature. The petitioners cite to Policy Bulletin
94.2, ``Treatment of Inventory Carrying Costs in Constructed Value''
(March 25, 1994).
DOC Position: We do not find this issue to be ministerial in
nature, because it is a substantive argument for a new methodology.
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. United States, No. 97-2, Slip Op. at 20
(CIT January 8, 1997). Accordingly, we have not considered this issue
because it is outside the scope of permissible corrections under 19
C.F.R. 353.28(d). Id. For more discussion, see Memorandum from the Team
to Richard W. Moreland, dated November 18, 1997 (Analysis Memorandum).
Allegation 2: Calculation of Weighted-Average Packing Costs
Borusan alleges that the Department should have used production
quantities, instead of sales quantities, to weight-average the indexed
packing costs used in calculating cost of production and foreign market
value.
The petitioners respond that the Department's use of sales
quantities does not appear to be a ministerial error, noting that the
use of sales quantity is reasonable because packing costs are largely
related to the shipment, not production, of merchandise.
DOC Position: In the final results of the 1994-95 administrative
review of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey, we
indexed all costs, including packing expenses, using production
quantities instead of sales quantities. See SAS programs used in the
Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 62 FR
27013 (May 16, 1997). Therefore, in accordance with 19 C.F.R.
353.28(c), we are amending the final results of this administrative
review to correct this ministerial error. For more discussion, see
Analysis Memorandum.
Amended Final Results of Review
Upon correction of the ministerial error regarding packing costs,
we have determined that the following margin for Borusan exists for the
period indicated below:
[[Page 62759]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borusan.................................... 5/1/93-4/30/94 3.97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Borusan, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 2.57
percent, the rate effective since May 16, 1997, which was published in
the Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 62 FR
27013 (May 16, 1997).
For merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered
in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to
be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final
results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-
specific rate. If the exporter is not a firm covered in this or a prior
review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the
cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the
merchandise. If neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm
covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be
14.74 percent, the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation.
These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication
of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice is a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also reminds parties subject to administrative
protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to comply is a violation of
the APO.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.28.
Dated: November 19, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-30958 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
