[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18375-18377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10113]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-549-502]
Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from
Thailand; Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of amended final results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 19, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the
Department) published the final results of its administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain circular welded carbon steel
pipes and tubes from Thailand (61 FR 1328). On February 2, 1996, Saha
Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Saha Thai), the sole respondent covered by
this review, filed a timely allegation of clerical error regarding
calculation of the cash deposit rate. Petitioners filed a timely reply
to respondent's clerical error allegation on February 9, 1996. Upon
review of these submissions, we have determined that the Department
made a clerical error when it stated in the final results that ``the
countervailing duty review for the period January 1, 1993, through
December 31, 1993, has not yet been completed.'' Id. at 1338. It is
because of
[[Page 18376]]
this clerical error that the Department did not adjust United States
price (USP) pursuant to section 772 (d)(1)(D) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act) for countervailing duties attributable to
export subsidies imposed on the subject merchandise. We are publishing
this amendment to the final results of review in accordance with 19 CFR
353.28(c).
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hanley or Zev Primor, Office of
Antidumping Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
3058/4114.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department published the order on certain circular welded
carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand on March 11, 1986 (51 FR
8341). The Department published the preliminary results of this review
on November 22, 1994 (59 FR 60128), and the final results of review on
January 19, 1996 (61 FR 1328).
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this administrative review are shipments of
certain circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Thailand. The
subject merchandise has an outside diameter of 0.375 inches or more,
but not exceeding 16 inches. These products, which are commonly
referred to in the industry as ``standard pipe'' or ``structural
tubing,'' are hereinafter designated as ``pipe and tube.'' The
merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS)
item numbers 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040,
7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, and 7306.30.5090. The item numbers are
provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service purposes. The written
description remains dispositive as to the scope of the order.
The review period is March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993. This
review involves one company, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Company, Ltd. (Saha
Thai).
Ministerial Error in Final Results of Review
Saha Thai alleges that the Department committed a clerical error by
failing to recognize that both countervailing duty reviews (1992 and
1993) that cover the antidumping period of review (March 1, 1992
through February 28, 1993) were completed prior to the completion of
this review. As a result, Saha Thai alleges, the Department had the
information to adjust USP (pursuant to section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act)
to account for countervailing duties in its margin calculations prior
to issuing the antidumping final results, but failed to do so.
Petitioners agree that the Department committed an error by stating
that the 1993 countervailing duty review had yet to be completed.
However, petitioners claim that the Department clearly stated in its
final results that the U.S. Customs Service would adjust the
antidumping duty cash deposit rate established in this review by the
current countervailing duty cash deposit rate in effect at the time
entries are made. Therefore, petitioners claim that this is a
methodological rather than clerical issue, and oppose any adjustment to
USP for countervailing duties imposed.
We agree with Saha Thai that the Department made a clerical error
in its final results by stating that ``the countervailing duty review
for the period January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993 has not yet
been completed'' (61 FR 1338). In fact the final results of the 1993
countervailing duty review were published in the Federal Register on
August 23, 1995 (60 FR 43773). Therefore, at the time it issued the
final results of this review on January 19, 1996, the Department had
the information necessary to adjust USP upward for countervailing
duties attributable to export subsidies imposed on the merchandise as
required by section 772(d)(1)(D) of the Act.
Further, we disagree with petitioners that this is a methodological
issue. The Department's unintentional error was clearly a ministerial
one within the meaning of section 353.28(d) of the Department's
regulations. 19 CFR 353.28(d). The statute clearly instructs the
Department to adjust USP for countervailing duties imposed on
merchandise subject to an antidumping duty review that are attributable
to export subsidies. In this review the Department mistakenly concluded
that it did not have the complete information to make such an
adjustment, and therefore stated that it would instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to adjust the antidumping duty cash deposit rate by the
countervailing duty rate currently in effect. Because it is now clear
that the information necessary to make the adjustment was available
before completion of the final results, failure to make the adjustment
is a clerical error.
Final Results of Review
Based upon correction of the ministerial error described above, we
determine that a margin of 17.28 percent exists for Saha Thai for the
period March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1993.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the U.S. Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon publication of these final results of administrative review for
all shipments of pipe and tube from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and will remain in effect
until the final results of the next administrative review: (1) the cash
deposit rate for Saha Thai will be 17.28 percent; (2) for previously
investigated companies not named above, the cash deposit will continue
to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period;
(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this 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) the cash deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters will be the ``all others'' rate
established in the final notice of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation of this case, in accordance with the U.S. Court of
International Trade's decisions in Floral Trade Council v. United
States, 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) and Federal Mogul Corporation and
Torrington Company v. United States, 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993). The
all others rate is 15.67 percent. These deposit requirements when
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as 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.
[[Page 18377]]
This notice also serves as a 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 353.34(d). Timely written 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.
This amendment of final results of review and notice are in
accordance with section 751(e) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(e))
and 19 CFR 353.28(c).
Dated: April 11, 1996.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-10113 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
