[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20579-20580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10999]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-428-820]
Small Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard,
Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany: Amendment of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Amendment of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 18, 1998, the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') published the final results of its administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on Small Diameter Circular Seamless
Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Germany
(63 FR 13217) covering the period January 27, 1995 through July 31,
1996. Based on the correction of a ministerial error made in the final
results, we are publishing this amendment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Decker or Linda Ludwig, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group III, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-
0196 or 482-3833, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 by the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR
Part 353 (April 1, 1997).
Background
On March 18, 1998, the Department published the final results of
its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on Small
Diameter Circular Seamless Carbon and Alloy Steel Standard, Line and
Pressure Pipe From Germany (63 FR 13217). This review covers one
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Mannesmannroehren-
Werke AG (``MRW''), and Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corporation (``MPS'')
(collectively ``Mannesmann''), for the period January 27, 1995 through
July 31, 1996. After publication of our final results, we received
timely allegations from petitioner and Mannesmann that we had made
ministerial errors in calculating the final results. The petitioner
filed a timely rebuttal to Mannesmann's ministerial error allegations.
We corrected our calculations, where we agree that we made ministerial
errors, in accordance with section 751 (h) of the Tariff Act.
Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations Received From Interested
Parties
We received two ministerial error allegations from Mannesmann and
one from petitioner. First, Mannesmann contends that the Department
neglected to convert certain indirect selling expenses and inventory
carrying costs (RINDIRSU and INVCARU) to U.S. dollars from Deutsche
Marks. Mannesmann notes that these variables are created using a factor
multiplied by the cost of manufacturing (TOTCOMCV) which is reported in
Deutsche Marks. Mannesmann asserts that the Department should correct
the final results by converting RINDIRSU and INVCARU to U.S. dollars.
As defined by section 751(h) Act, the term ``ministerial error''
includes errors ``in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic
function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error
which the [Department] considers ministerial.'' We agree with
Mannesmann that RINDIRSU and INVCARU should be converted to U.S.
dollars. This type of unintentional error meets the definition of
ministerial error contained in the Act. We have made the suggested
correction for the amended final results.
Second, Mannesmann asserts that the factors for general and
administrative expenses (GNA) and interest expenses are based upon cost
data as reported by Mannesmann and not as adjusted by the Department.
Therefore, Mannesmann argues, these GNA and interest factors should be
applied before the Department's billet cost adjustment is made to
material costs.
Petitioner argues that Mannesmann has made no showing that applying
the GNA and expense factors to Mannesmann's adjusted cost of
manufacturing (COM) was an inadvertent or unintentional act, as opposed
to a deliberate, methodological choice by the Department. Petitioner
cites Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 592 F. Supp. 1338,
1340-
[[Page 20580]]
41 (CIT 1984) as stating that under the ministerial error procedure the
Department may only correct an inadvertence or mistake that involves no
discretionary considerations. Petitioner further contends that the
Department applied the interest expense and GNA factors to Mannesmann's
adjusted COM correctly under the law. Petitioner asserts that
Mannesmann fails to cite any previous case where, unlike in this case,
the Department performed its build-up of cost of production (COP) by
applying GNA and interest expense factors to a COM that values a major
input at the affiliates' reported cost of production even though the
Department expressly disregarded those costs. Petitioner argues that it
is standard Department practice that all COP/CV cost calculations be
based on a respondent's manufacturing costs as adjusted, when
appropriate, under the major input rule.
We agree with petitioner that this issue is methodological in
nature and have not made this correction in the amended final results.
We note that the same calculation was made in the preliminary results
of review, and Mannesmann did not comment on it in its case brief.
Third, petitioner argues that the Department erred in the
calculation of net price (NPRICOP) for use in the cost test. Petitioner
asserts that the calculations performed understate the adjustments to
GRSUPRH (gross unit price) and overstate NPRICOP. Petitioner notes that
Mannesmann's failure at verification on certain inland freight charges
(INLFTC2H) essentially resulted in the Department's application of
adverse facts available in the calculation of normal value. The
petitioner further argues that the Department's calculation of NPRICOP
in the below-cost test rewards Mannesmann by raising net price, thereby
tending to cause fewer sales to fall below cost.
We disagree with petitioner that this issue is clerical in nature.
We find that this issue is methodological in nature and have not made
this correction in the amended final results. Since most of
petitioner's argument is business proprietary, please see Amended Final
Analysis Memorandum for a more detailed explanation of this issue. We
note that the same calculation was made in the preliminary results of
review, and petitioner did not comment on it in its case brief.
Amended Final Results of Review
We determine that the following weighted-average margin exists:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period of review (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mannesmann................................ 1/27/95--7/31/96 21.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will
calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on
the entered value of each entry of subject merchandise during the POR.
We will direct the Customs Service to collect cash deposits of
estimated antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The amended
deposit requirements are effective for all shipments of the subject
merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the date of publication date of this notice and will remain in
effect until the 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 subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
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. Timely
written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
Section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: April 16, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-10999 Filed 4-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
