[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64559-64564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32063]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-809]
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea;
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the
Republic of Korea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel
pipe from the Republic of Korea. The period of review is November 1,
1995 through October 31, 1996. This review covers imports of pipe from
four producers/exporters.
We have preliminarily found that sales of subject merchandise have
been made below normal value. If these preliminary results are adopted
in our final results, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess
antidumping duties based on the difference between the U.S. price and
normal value.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. We will issue the final results not later than 120 days from
the date of publication of this notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Thirumalai, Marian Wells, or
Rosa Jeong, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4087, 482-6309, and 482-
1278 respectively.
The 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 the Department of Commerce's (the
Department's) regulations refer to the regulations, codified at 19 CFR
part 353, April 1997.
Background
Since the publication of Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
Preliminary Results, Partial Termination of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review,
on July 15, 1997 (62 FR 37865), the following has occurred.
On July 25, 1997, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO) and Union Steel
Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Union) asking about issues of affiliation. The
companies responded to the affiliation questions on August 6, 1997. We
notified Union and KISCO in an October 22, 1997, letter that their
responses should be consolidated into one response (see ``Collapsing
Union and KISCO'' in this notice). The Department received a
consolidated response from these companies on November 17, 1997.
On October 30, 1997, we requested respondents to resubmit their
data using purchase order/contract date, as opposed to invoice date, as
date of sale for U.S. transactions. We received partially updated sales
databases with
[[Page 64560]]
the new date of sale from SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH) and Shinho
Steel Co., Ltd. (Shinho) on November 17, 1997. (In the case of Hyundai
Pipe Co. Ltd. (Hyundai), this information had been previously requested
and supplied to the Department.) Union/KISCO's collapsed submission
received on November 17, 1997 did not include the change in the date of
sale.
Supplemental questionnaires were sent to respondents in November
1997. Responses to our supplemental questionnaires regarding level of
trade (LOT) were received by November 13, 1997. Additional supplemental
questionnaires responses from all respondents are due December 3, 1997.
We intend to issue the final results of this review not later than
120 days after publication of these preliminary results.
Scope of Review
The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy
steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4mm
(16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface
finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end,
beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes
are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for
the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and
other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-
conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related
uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing
applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing
used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-
bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm
equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is
also included in this order.
All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description
outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line
pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe
and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished
conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative
Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and
Venezuela (61 FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L
line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L line-pipe
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-pipe
specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as outlined
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas
pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 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 HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description
of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
Collapsing KISCO and Union
On May 22 and June 30, 1997, the petitioners, Allied Tube and
Conduit Corporation, Sawhill Tubular Division-Armco, Inc. and Wheatland
Tube Company, argued that because of the strong possibility of
manipulation of prices and production, the Department should treat
Union and KISCO as a single, collapsed entity and calculate a single
combined antidumping duty rate for both companies. In determining
whether companies should be collapsed, the Department makes three
inquiries. First, the Department examines whether the companies in
question are ``affiliated'' within the meaning of section 771(33) of
the Act. Second, the Department examines whether the companies in
question have similar production facilities, such that retooling would
not be required to shift production from one company to another. Third,
the Department examines whether there exists other evidence indicating
a significant potential for the manipulation of prices or production.
The types of factors the Department considers in determining whether
there is a significant potential for the manipulation of prices or
production include: (1) The level of common ownership; (2) the
existence of interlocking officers or directors (e.g., whether
managerial employees or board members of one company sit on the board
of directors of the other affiliated parties); and (3) the existence of
intertwined operations. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from Korea, 60 FR 65284 (December 19, 1995) (Korean Steel).
In the first administrative review of this order, the petitioners
also argued that Union and KISCO should be collapsed, and the
Department agreed. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review: Circular
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea, 62 FR 55574
(October 27, 1997) (Pipe First Review). In the present proceeding, we
again closely analyzed the relevant factors in light of the information
on record of the present review. We determined that the factors that
led to the collapsing decision in the first review continue to exist in
the present review. Therefore, we have collapsed Union and KISCO and
calculated a single antidumping duty rate for the collapsed entity.
Date of Sale
When determining which sales fall within the period of review
(POR), respondents used either invoice date, tax invoice date, or
shipment date (collectively referred to hereafter as ``invoice date'')
as the date of sale. Most respondents claimed that the invoice date is
what is maintained in their corporate records and that use of invoice
date is in accordance with the Department's stated practice (see
Memorandum from Susan G. Esserman ``Date of Sale Methodology Under New
Regulations,'' March 29, 1996).
Based on our review of the responses, we determined invoice date
should not be used as the date of sale for U.S. transactions. (For home
market transactions, we find that invoice date reasonably approximates
the date on which the material terms of sale are made and have used
this as our date of sale.) While each company has a slightly different
U.S. sales process, consistent throughout the responses is the notion
that price and quantity are established, then the factory produces the
subject merchandise, and finally, after a significant period of time,
the product is shipped and an invoice is issued. Based on this
understanding of the companies' U.S. sales process, we instructed
respondents to report as the date of sale the date that will reasonably
approximate the time at which the material terms of sale are set (see,
Memorandum for Richard W. Moreland, dated October 30, 1997).
The above-mentioned change in the U.S. date of sale necessitated
changes to the U.S. sales listings of respondents to correct the date
of sale. As a consequence of the change in the U.S. date of sale, home
market sales listings also have to be revised to include sales of
identical and similar merchandise that are contemporaneous with U.S.
sales. Due to the late date on which we informed respondents of the
need to change the U.S. date of sale, all respondents were not able to
modify fully their U.S. and home market sales listings in time for
these preliminary results of review. Therefore, we have used the most
current sales listings available to the Department. Hyundai, SeAH, and
Shinho partially revised
[[Page 64561]]
their U.S. sales listings by changing the date of sale for previously
reported transactions. Union/KISCO was unable to provide a collapsed
sales listing reflecting the change in the U.S. date of sale in time
for these preliminary results. As a result, we are using invoice date
as the date of Union/KISCO's U.S. sales. Furthermore, for all
respondents, we have made comparisons to constructed value (CV) for
U.S. sales that do not have contemporaneous home market sales matches.
Resales of Subject Merchandise
Some companies purchase subject merchandise from unaffiliated
manufacturers and then further manufacture it into products also within
the scope of this review. For purposes of these preliminary results, we
have included sales of all such further-manufactured subject
merchandise in our analysis.
SeAH
During the POR, SeAH purchased a small quantity of subject
merchandise from an unaffiliated producer, and subsequently resold the
merchandise in the United States. According to SeAH, the unaffiliated
producer was aware of the ultimate destination of the merchandise at
the time of sale to SeAH (see SeAH response of March 24, 1997, p. 33).
In their June 24, 1997 submission, petitioners argue that products
purchased from the unaffiliated producer and resold by SeAH should be
included in SeAH's U.S. and home market sales listings. To support this
argument, petitioners cite to Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from
Japan, 61 FR 67308 (December 20, 1997) (Cement and Clinker).
Regarding U.S. sales, the Department examines the first party in
the distribution chain selling with the knowledge that the merchandise
is destined for the U.S. See 19 CFR 353.41(b), Certain Pasta from
Italy: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Postpone of Final Determination, 60 FR 1344, 1348-1349
(January 19, 1996) (Pasta from Italy). In SeAH's case, the unaffiliated
producer knew at the time of the sale to SeAH that the merchandise was
destined for the United States. Therefore, the appropriate export price
for that merchandise would be the price between the unaffiliated
producer and SeAH (see Pasta from Italy). Moreover, the unaffiliated
producer would be the appropriate party to be reviewed with respect to
these resales.
The case cited by petitioners dealt with home market sales.
Contrary to petitioners' assertions, the Department excluded all
resales of merchandise purchased from an unaffiliated producer from its
foreign market value (FMV) calculation in Cement and Clinker to the
extent that they were separately identifiable. It was only in those
cases where resales were inextricably commingled with the respondent's
own product sales and where the inclusion of these resales did not
distort the FMV calculation that the Department allowed them to be
included among the respondent's home market sales. Therefore, this
precedent does not provide a basis for including resales of this
merchandise in the home market in our calculation of normal value (NV).
Consequently, products purchased from this unaffiliated producer and
resold into the U.S. market have not been included among SeAH's U.S. or
home market sales listings.
Product Comparisons
We calculated monthly, weighted-average, NVs. Where possible, we
compared U.S. sales to sales of identical merchandise in Korea. When
identical merchandise was not sold during the relevant contemporaneous
period, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign
like product (see section 771(16)(B) and (C) of the Act).
Export Price and Constructed Export Price
For sales to the United States, we used export price (EP) or
constructed export price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b)
of the Act, as appropriate.
In accordance with sections 772(a) and (c) of the Act, we
calculated an EP where the merchandise was sold directly to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation, and
CEP was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. In
accordance with sections 772(b), (c) and (d) of the Act, we calculated
a CEP for sales made by affiliated U.S. resellers that took place after
importation into the United States. EP and CEP were based on the packed
C&F, delivered, CIF duty paid, or ex-dock duty paid price to
unaffiliated purchasers in, or for exportation to, the United States.
As appropriate, we made deductions for discounts and rebates, including
early payment discounts. We added to U.S. price amounts for duty
drawback, pursuant to section 772 (c)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
that such rebates were not excessive (see Pipe First Review). We also
made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included foreign inland freight, foreign
brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs
brokerage, U.S. customs duties, harbor maintenance fees, merchandise
processing fees, and U.S. inland freight expenses (freight from port to
warehouse and freight from warehouse to the customer).
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted from
CEP those selling expenses associated with economic activities
occurring in the United States, including commissions, direct selling
expenses (credit costs, introduction allowances, and warranty
expenses), inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses,
where applicable. Credit expenses were offset by interest revenues,
where applicable. We also deducted from CEP an amount for profit in
accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
We compared the aggregate quantity of home market and U.S. sales
and determined that the quantity of each company's sales in its home
market was more than five percent of the quantity of its sales to the
U.S. market. Consequently, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act,
we based NV on home market sales.
Certain respondents reported sales in the home market of
``overrun'' merchandise (i.e., sales of a greater quantity of pipe than
the customer ordered due to overproduction). Respondents claimed that
we should disregard ``overrun'' sales in the home market as outside the
ordinary course of trade.
Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides that normal value shall be
based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the
usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
Ordinary course of trade is defined in section 771(15) of the Act. We
analyzed the following criteria to determine whether ``overrun'' sales
differ from other sales of commercial pipe: (1) ratio of overrun sales
to total home market sales; (2) number of overrun customers compared to
total number of home market customers; (3) average price of an overrun
sale compared to average price of a commercial sale; (4) profitability
of overrun sales compared to profitability of commercial sales; and (5)
average quantity of an overrun sale compared to the average quantity of
a commercial sale. Based on our analysis of these criteria and on an
analysis of the terms of sale, we found certain overrun sales to be
outside the ordinary course of trade. This analysis is consistent with
[[Page 64562]]
the analysis sustained by the Court of International Trade in Laclede
Steel Co. V. United States, Slip. Op. 94-114 (1995).
Hyundai and SeAH had sales in the home market to affiliated
customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's length, we
compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated
customers, net of all movement charges, direct and indirect selling
expenses, discounts and packing. Where the price to the affiliated
party was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the
unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the
affiliated party were at arm's length and included those sales in our
calculation of NV pursuant to 19 CFR 353.45(a).
We made adjustments for differences in packing in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(A) and B(i) of the Act. We also made adjustments for
movement expenses, consistent with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, for
inland freight. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in
cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the
merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, as well as
for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR. 353.56. For
comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling
expenses incurred on home market sales (credit expenses as offset by
interest revenue) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit
costs, introduction allowances, and warranty expenses). For comparisons
to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses
incurred on home market sales. Since no respondent had U.S. direct
selling expenses other than those deducted from the starting price in
calculating CEP pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, we made no
additions to normal value in making COS adjustments. We also made
adjustments, where applicable, for indirect selling expenses incurred
on home market sales to offset commissions in EP calculations;
specifically, we deducted from normal value the lesser of (1) the
amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale for a particular product, or
(2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred on the home market
sales for a particular product, including inventory carrying costs in
accordance with 19 CFR 353.56.
Level of Trade/CEP Offset
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the
Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA at 829-
831, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based
on sales at the same LOT as the EP or CEP. When the Department is
unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the comparison
market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the
U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market.
We determine that sales are made at different levels of trade if
they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent).
Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not
sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the
stages of marketing. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and
Tubes from India; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 62 FR 23760, 23761(May 1, 1997). See, also, 19
CFR 351.412 (62 FR 27296, 27414-27415 (May 19, 1997)) for a concise
description of this practice.
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained
information from each respondent regarding the marketing stage involved
in the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of
the selling activities performed by the respondents for each channel of
distribution. (For further information on the LOT analysis for each
company, see the Memorandum from the team to S. Kuhbach of December 1,
1997.) Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and the SAA at
827, in identifying levels of trade for EP and home market sales we
considered the selling functions reflected in the starting prices
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we considered only the selling
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. We expect that, if claimed
levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the
seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of
trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and
activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
When CEP sales have been made in the United States, in SeAH's case,
section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act establishes that a CEP ``offset'' may
be made provided that two conditions exist: (1) NV is established at a
LOT that is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of
the CEP; and (2) the data available do not permit a determination that
there is a pattern of consistent price differences between sales at
different levels of trade in the comparison market.
Shinho, Hyundai, and KISCO/Union
Based on an analysis of the selling functions, class of customers,
and level of selling expenses, we found that sales made by Shinho,
Hyundai and KISCO/Union were at a single stage in the marketing process
in both the home market and the United States (i.e., one LOT exists in
home market and one LOT exists in the United States with respect to
each company). Moreover, because the stages of marketing in the two
markets were not substantially dissimilar, we have preliminarily found
that sales in both markets are at the same LOT and consequently no LOT
adjustment is warranted.
SeAH
With respect to SeAH's EP sales, we found that sales were made at a
single stage in the marketing process in both the home market and the
United States, and that these stages of marketing were not
substantially dissimilar. Therefore, we have preliminarily found that
SeAH's EP and home market sales are at the same LOT and that no LOT
adjustment is needed.
SeAH asserts that its home market sales are at a more advanced LOT
than its CEP sales because the CEP LOT does not include inventory
maintenance or expenses associated with arranging for freight. We have
preliminarily determined that these differences in selling activities
are not substantial and, therefore, that SeAH's home market and CEP
sales are made at the same marketing stages. Consequently, we
preliminarily determine that SeAH's home market and U.S. sales are at
the same LOT and no CEP offset is warranted.
Cost of Production Analysis
Based on timely allegations filed by the petitioners, the
Department initiated a cost of production (COP) investigation of Union/
KISCO to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP. See
Memoranda from Craig Matney to Office Director Susan Kuhbach, dated
June 24 and June 25, 1997.
Because we disregarded sales below the COP in the less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation for Hyundai, SeAH, and Shinho (see Circular
Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea: Notice of Final Court Decision
and Amended Final Determination, 60 FR 55833, November 3, 1995 (Pipe
LTFV)), we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of
the foreign product under consideration for the determination of NV in
this review may have been made at prices below the COP, as provided by
[[Page 64563]]
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section
773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of these
companies' home market.
We conducted the COP analysis described below.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the
weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of
materials, fabrication and general expenses, and packing costs.
B. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of a
respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because
we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a
given product were made at prices below the COP, we disregarded the
below-cost sales because such sales were found to be made within an
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities'' in accordance
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act. Moreover, based on
comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we
determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices
which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period
of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Where all
contemporaneous sales of a specific product were made at prices below
the COP, we calculated NV based on CV, in accordance with section
773(a)(4) of the Act.
We found that all respondents made home market sales at below COP
prices within an extended period of time in substantial quantities.
Further, we found that these sales prices did not permit for the
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore
excluded these sales from our analysis in accordance with section
773(b)(1) of the Act.
Constructed Value
Where NV could not be based on home market sales either because (1)
there were no contemporaneous sales of a comparable product or (2) all
contemporaneous sales of the comparison product failed the COP test, we
compared U.S. prices to CV. In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the
Act, we calculated CV based on the sum of the cost of materials of the
product sold in the United States, plus amounts for general expenses,
home market profit and U.S. packing costs. We calculated each
respondent's CV based on the methodology described in the ``Calculation
of COP'' section of this notice, above. In accordance with section
773(e)(2)(A), we used the actual amounts incurred and realized by
respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign
like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the
foreign country to calculate general expenses and home market profit.
For price-to-CV comparisons, we made adjustments to CV in
accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.56 for COS
differences. For comparisons to EP, we made COS adjustments by
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales and
adding U.S. direct selling expenses. For comparisons to CEP, we made
COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home
market sales. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for indirect
selling expenses incurred on home market sales to offset U.S.
commissions in EP comparisons; specifically, we deducted from normal
value the lesser of: (1) The amount of commission paid on a U.S. sale
for a particular product, or (2) the amount of indirect selling
expenses incurred on the home market sales for a particular product.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the
Act. Currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank. Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a
daily exchange rate to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars
unless the daily rate involves a ``fluctuation.'' It is our practice to
find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs
from a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. See Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 61 FR 35188, 35192 (July 5, 1996). The
benchmark rate is defined as the rolling average of the rates for the
past 40 business days.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margin exists for the period November 1, 1995, through
October 31, 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai..................................................... 4.10
Union/KISCO................................................. 2.36
Shinho...................................................... 3.34
SeAH........................................................ 7.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may also
request a hearing within ten days of publication. If requested, a
hearing will be held March 2, 1998. Interested parties may submit case
briefs pertaining to non-verification issues by January 12, 1998.
Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case
briefs, may be filed not later than January 20, 1998. Briefs pertaining
to verification issues must be submitted by February 26, 1998, with
rebuttal briefs not later than March 5, 1998. The Department will issue
a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will
include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such
briefs, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary
results.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance
with the methodology in Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial Termination of Administrative Review:
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea (62 FR
55574, October 27, 1997), we calculated exporter/importer-specific
assessment values by dividing the total dumping duties due for each
importer by the number of tons used to determine the duties due. We
will direct Customs to assess the resulting per-ton dollar amount
against each ton of the merchandise entered by these importers' during
the review period.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of steel wire rope from Korea entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this
administrative review (except no cash deposit will be required for
those companies whose weighted-average margin is de minimis, i.e., less
than 0.5 percent); (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or
exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original LTFV
investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to
be the most recent rate published in the final determination or
[[Page 64564]]
final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received an
individual rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 4.80 percent,
the ``all others'' rate established in the less-than-fair-value
investigation. See Pipe LTFV.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 751(d) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: December 1, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-32063 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
