[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16974-16979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9091]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-502]
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from
Thailand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by Saha Thai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.
(``Saha Thai'') and its affiliated exporter, S.A.F. Pipe Export Co.,
Ltd., (``SAF''), and two importers, Ferro Union Inc. (``Ferro Union''),
and ASOMA Corp. (``ASOMA''), the Department of Commerce (``the
Department'') is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from
Thailand. This review covers Saha Thai/SAF, a manufacturer/exporter of
the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review
(POR) is March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997.
We have preliminarily determined that the respondent sold subject
merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct
U.S. Customs to assess antidumping duties based on the differences
between the export price and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding should also
submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Totaro or Dorothy Woster, AD/CVD
Enforcement Group III, Office VII, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1374 or (202) 482-3362, respectively.
Applicable Statute
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 (hereinafter,
``the Act'') by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In
addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's
regulations are to the old regulations (19 C.F.R. Part 353 (1997)), as
amended by the interim regulations published in the Federal Register on
May 11, 1995, (60 FR 25130). Although the Department's new regulations,
codified at 19 CFR 351 (62 FR 27296, May 19, 1997) (``Final
Regulations''), do not govern this administrative review, citations to
those regulations are provided, where appropriate, as a statement of
current departmental practice.
[[Page 16975]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 11, 1986, the Department published in the Federal Register
an antidumping duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from
Thailand (51 FR 8341). On March 7, 1997, the Department published a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order
covering the period March 1, 1996 through February 28, 1997 (62 FR
10521). A timely request for an administrative review of the
antidumping order with respect to sales by Saha Thai/SAF during the POR
was filed jointly by Saha Thai, SAF, Ferro Union, and ASOMA. The
Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review on April 24, 1997 (62 FR 19988). On May 14, 1997,
certain domestic producers of standard pipe products entered an
appearance in this review: Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, Sawhill
Tubular Division--Armco, Inc., Wheatland Tube Company, and Laclede
Steel Company, (``petitioners'' or ``domestic interested parties'').
Because the Department determined that it was not practicable to
complete this review within statutory time limits, on November 19,
1997, we published in the Federal Register our notice of extension of
time limits for this review (62 FR 61802). As a result, we extended the
deadline for these preliminary results. The deadline for the final
results will continue to be 120 days after publication of these
preliminary results.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this administrative review are certain
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. Although the HTS subheadings are
provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description
of the scope of the order is dispositive. This review covers sales by
Saha Thai/SAF during the period March 1, 1996 through February 28,
1997.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales
information provided by the respondent Saha Thai from March 2-6, 1997,
using standard verification procedures, including examination of
relevant financial records and analysis of original documentation used
by Saha Thai to prepare responses to requests for information from the
Department. We also verified sales and level of trade issues at one of
Saha Thai's home market resellers which the Department determined was
an affiliate of Saha Thai. Our verification results are outlined in the
public version of the verification report (Memorandum to Roland L.
MacDonald) from John B. Totaro and Dorothy A. Woster, March 19, 1998
(``Saha Thai Verification Report'').
Affiliation and Collapsing Determinations
Pursuant to section 771 (33) of the Act, the Department considers
the following persons or parties to be affiliated:
A. Members of a family, including brothers and sisters (whether by
the whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, and lineal descendants.
B. Any officer or director of an organization and such
organization.
C. Partners.
D. Employer and employee.
E. Any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or
holding with power to vote, five percent or more of the outstanding
voting stock or shares of any organization and such organization.
F. Two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with, any person.
G. Any person who controls any other person and such other person.
For the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be considered to
control another person if the person is legally or operationally in a
position to exercise restraint or direction over the other person.
It is the Department's practice to collapse affiliated producers
for purposes of calculating a margin when the facts demonstrate that
the relationship is such that there is a strong possibility of
manipulation of prices and production decisions that would result in
circumvention of the antidumping order. Although the Department's new
regulations published May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27410) do not govern this
review, they do codify the Department's current practice. Current
practice calls for the Department to treat two or more affiliated
producers as a single entity (i.e., ``collapse'' the firms) for
purposes of calculating a dumping margin when the following three
criteria are met:
1. The producers must be affiliated;
2. The producers must have production facilities for similar or
identical products that would not require substantial retooling of
either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and
3. There must be a significant potential for the manipulation of
price or production. Final Regulations, 62 FR 27296, 27410.
In identifying whether there is a significant potential for the
manipulation of price or production, the factors the Department
considers include: the level of common ownership; whether managerial
employees or board members of one of the affiliated producers sit on
the board(s) of directors of the other affiliated parties; and whether
operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales
information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the
sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between
the affiliated producers.
A. Producers of Subject Merchandise
The Department finds that Saha Thai is affiliated under section
771(33)(F) of the Act with two Thai producers of the subject
merchandise that are not respondents in this review: Thai Tube Co.,
Ltd. (``Thai Tube''), and Thai Hong Steel Pipe Import Export Co., Ltd.
(``Thai Hong''). This affiliation is established through common control
by the Lamatipanont family. For a more detailed discussion of the
Department's analysis, see Memorandum to the File, March 31, 1998
(``Producers Affiliation-Collapsing Memorandum.'')
Further, based on public information on the record of this review,
the Department determines that Thai Tube and Thai Hong are both
producers of the subject merchandise, and therefore have production
facilities for identical products to those produced by Saha Thai. We,
therefore, conclude that Thai Tube and Thai Hong could restructure
their production priorities to produce the subject merchandise with
little or no retooling of their facilities.
In considering the ``significant potential'' factors described
above, the Department finds, based on the evidence on the record, that
there is substantial involvement in the ownership and management of
these three producers by members of the Lamatipanont family. However,
because there is no evidence of intertwined
[[Page 16976]]
operations, we preliminarily find that a significant potential for
manipulation of price or production does not exist between Saha Thai
and Thai Tube or between Saha Thai and Thai Hong. Therefore, we have
not collapsed these three entities for the purpose of calculating a
dumping margin. However, we will continue to examine this issue for the
final results. See Producers Affiliation-Collapsing Memorandum.
B. Siam Steel Group
The Department finds that the member companies of the Siam Steel
Group are affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Act because they
are owned and managed by the Karuchit/Kunanantakul family. In
discussing the scope of the Department's analysis of affiliation
through ``control'' under section 771(33) of the Act, the Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
states that ``[a] company may be in a position to exercise restraint or
direction, for example, through corporate or family groupings * * *''
Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol.1, 103d Cong.
(1994) (``SAA'') at 838. The facts on the record in this review
demonstrate that the Siam Steel Group, a grouping of Thai entities
(including Saha Thai) which produce, sell and provide services related
to various steel products under common control by the Karuchit/
Kunanantakul family, is the type of ``corporate or family grouping''
envisioned in the SAA and the Final Regulations. Based on the facts in
this case, we find that Saha Thai is affiliated under section
771(33)(F) with each and every member of the Siam Steel Group. See
Memorandum to the File, March 31, 1998 (``SSG Affiliation-Collapsing
Memorandum.'')
``Company E'' is a producer of PVC-lined steel pipes and a member
of the Siam Steel Group. Therefore, we considered whether Saha Thai and
Company E should be collapsed as a single entity for purposes of
calculating an antidumping margin. Company E produces standard welded
steel BS-medium grade pipe as an intermediate product to finished PVC-
lined pipe. In doing so, Company E uses a production process similar to
that used by Saha Thai to manufacture the subject merchandise with
additional steps to yield PVC-lined pipe. Saha Thai stated that Company
E subjects the intermediate, unlined steel pipe to substantial
additional manufacturing operations and associated costs to transform
this the intermediate product to PVC-lined pipe. In consideration of
these facts, we preliminarily do not conclude that it would not require
substantial retooling of Company E's facilities to shift production of
the subject merchandise from Saha Thai to Company E. Evidence on the
record indicates that executing this type of shift would require
extensive and expensive infrastructure changes in Company E. Therefore,
the second collapsing criterion of section 351.401(f) of the Final
Regulations is not satisfied. We will continue to examine this issue
for the final results.
Because we determine that the second collapsing criterion is not
satisfied, it is not necessary to consider the third criterion in the
collapsing analysis--identifying the potential for manipulation of
price or production. See Certain Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From
Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR
42496, 42497 (August 7, 1997). For these reasons, we determine that it
is not appropriate to treat the affiliated companies Saha Thai and
Company E as a single entity for the purposes of calculating an
antidumping margin. See SSG Affiliation-Collapsing Memorandum.
C. Resellers
The record evidence demonstrates that the Sae Haeng/Ratanasirivilai
family controls both Saha Thai and Company A, the Lamatipanont family
controls both Saha Thai and Company B, and the Ampapankit family
controls both Saha Thai and Company C. The record therefore supports
our finding of affiliation under section 771(33)(F) of the Act between
Saha Thai and these three resellers. See Memorandum to the File, March
31, 1998 (``Resellers Affiliation Memorandum'').
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of steel pipes and tubes from Thailand
to the United States were made at less than normal value (NV), we
compared the United States price (USP) to the NV for Saha Thai as
specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2), we calculated
monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual
U.S. transactions.
United States Price
We based USP on EP, in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act,
when the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States prior to importation. Saha Thai sells to the United
States through its affiliated export company SAF. We classified all
Saha Thai sales to United States customers as EP sales because we did
not find Saha Thai/SAF to be affiliated with its U.S. distributors.
Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Thailand: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 56515, 56517
(November 1, 1996). In this review, the record evidence presents no
factual circumstances warranting a change from this prior analysis.
Accordingly, we calculated the EP based on the price from Saha Thai/
SAF to unaffiliated parties in the United States where these sales were
made prior to importation into the United States, in accordance with
section 772(a) of the Act. Where appropriate, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions from the starting
price for ocean freight to the U.S. port, foreign inland freight,
foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland insurance, and bill of
lading charge. We also added duty drawback rebated to Saha Thai upon
exportation of subject merchandise made from imported coil in
accordance with section 771(c)(1) of the Act.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we
compared the volume of Saha Thai's home market sales of the foreign
like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this
comparison, we determined that the aggregate volume of Saha Thai's home
market sales of the foreign like product is greater than five percent
of the aggregate volume of Saha Thai's U.S. sales. Thus, we determined
that Saha Thai had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently,
we based NV on home market sales.
As discussed above, we found Saha Thai and its three home market
resellers affiliated under section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Based on this
finding, we applied the standard arm's length test to Saha Thai's sales
to these affiliated resellers. Because these sales were not made at
arm's length prices, we required Saha Thai to report the downstream
sales made in the home market by the affiliated resellers. These sales
were included in our home market normal value calculation. See
Memorandum to File from Dorothy Woster, March 31, 1998 (``Analysis
Memorandum'').
Pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, there were reasonable
grounds to believe or suspect that Saha Thai had made home market sales
at prices below its COP in this review because the
[[Page 16977]]
Department had disregarded sales below the COP in the 1994-1995
administrative review (i.e., the most recently completed review at the
time we issued our antidumping questionnaire). As a result, the
Department initiated an investigation to determine whether Saha Thai
made home market sales during the POR at prices below its COP. We
calculated the COP based on the sum of respondent's cost of materials
and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for SG&A and
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act.
We used respondent's reported COP amounts to compute weighted-
average COPs during the POR. We compared the COP figures to home market
sales of the foreign like product as required under section 773(b) of
the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at
prices below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP
to home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts
and credit notes.
In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at
prices below the COP, we examined (1) whether, within an extended
period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities, and (2)
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of
trade.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of the respondent's sales of a given product were at prices
less than 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 the
respondent's sales of a given product during the POR were at prices
less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in
substantial quantities within an extended period of time in accordance
with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined
that such sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-
cost sales.
On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir.,
1998). In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the
Court discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as
the basis for foreign market when the Department finds home market
sales to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was
not raised by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended
the definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to
include sales disregarded as below cost. See Section 771(15) of the
Act. Consequently, the Department has determined that it would be
inappropriate to resort directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market
sales, as the basis for NV if the Department finds foreign market sales
of merchandise identical or most similar to that sold in the United
States to be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the
Department will use sales of similar merchandise, if such sales exist.
The Department will use CV as the basis for NV only when there are no
above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore,
in this proceeding, when making comparisons in accordance with section
771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market
as described in the ``Scope of Review'' section of this notice, above,
that were in the ordinary course of trade (i.e., sales that passed the
cost test) for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons
to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales in the ordinary course of
trade of the identical or the most similar merchandise in the home
market that were otherwise suitable for comparison, we compared U.S.
sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product, based on
the characteristics listed in Sections B and C of our antidumping
questionnaire. We have implemented the Court's decision in this case,
to the extent that the data on the record permitted.
Where appropriate, we adjusted Saha Thai's home market sales for
discounts, credit expenses, inland freight, inland insurance, and
warehousing. We also adjusted the home market sales made by reseller
Company B for credit notes. In addition, in accordance with section
773(a)(6), we deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing
costs.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of Saha Thai's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A,
profit, and U.S. packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A)
of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred
and realized by Saha Thai in connection with the production and sale of
the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for
consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the
average of the selling expenses reported for home market sales that
survived the cost test, weighted by the total quantity of those sales.
For actual profit, we first calculated the difference between the home
market sales value and home market COP, and divided the difference by
the home market COP. We then multiplied this percentage by the COP for
each U.S. model to derive an actual profit.
Level of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA,
to the extent practicable, we determine normal value (NV) based on
sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the export
price (EP) or the constructed export price (CEP). The NV level of trade
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when
NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of the sales from which we
derive selling, general and administrative expenses and profit. For EP,
the U.S. level of trade is the level of the starting-price sale, which
is usually from exporter to importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different level of trade, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level of trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731
(November 19, 1997).
For the U.S. market, Saha Thai reported only one level of trade for
its EP sales. This single level of trade represents large volume sales
to unaffiliated trading companies/distributors in the U.S. In the home
market, Saha Thai claimed that sales were made at two levels of trade:
(1) large volume home market sales made to unaffiliated trading
companies and distributors (made at the same level of trade as U.S.
sales), and (2) sales made by its affiliated resellers to retailers and
end-users. Saha Thai claimed that the resellers' home market sales are
at a more advanced level of trade than Saha Thai/SAF's U.S. and home
market sales because the reseller sales require keeping varied
inventory on hand, higher warehouse staffing levels, and additional
delivery services and selling expenses.
[[Page 16978]]
To determine whether sales in the home market occur at two
different levels of trade, and therefore, whether a level of trade
adjustment should be applied when U.S. sales are matched to sales by
Saha Thai's resellers, we analyzed the selling expenses and functions
performed by Saha Thai and its affiliated resellers. In comparing the
two claimed home market levels of trade to each other, we note that
both Saha Thai and the resellers performed the following selling
functions: preparing merchandise for shipment, maintaining sales
records, and pricing/ discounts/ rebates. The following selling
functions are performed only by the resellers: maintaining inventory,
collecting bills, extending credit, pre-sale warehousing, and providing
delivery to the customer with its own fleet of trucks. The qualitative
nature of these different selling functions is reflective of a more
advanced marketing stage, viz-a-viz Saha Thai's sales to trading
companies/distributors. Consistent with this finding, we note
significant quantifiable difference in selling expenses (indirect
selling expenses and presale warehousing expenses) reported by the
resellers and Saha Thai. Thus, we determine that resellers' sales were
made at a more advanced level of trade than Saha Thai's sales in the
home market. Accordingly, where possible, we matched EP sales to home
market sales made at the same level of trade, i.e. to home market sales
made by Saha Thai.
When we compare U.S. sales to home market sales at a different
level of trade, we make a level-of-trade adjustment if the difference
in levels of trade affects price comparability. We determine any effect
on price comparability by examining sales at different levels of trade
in a single market, the home market. Any price effect must be
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between home
market sales used for comparison and sales at the equivalent level of
trade of the export transaction. To quantify the price differences, we
calculate the difference in the average of the net prices of the same
models sold at different levels of trade. We use the average difference
in net prices to adjust NV when NV is based on a level of trade
different from that of the export sale. If there is a pattern of no
price differences, the difference in levels of trade does not have a
price effect and, therefore, no adjustment is necessary. Because
comparisons of home market net prices did not reveal a pattern of
consistent price differences between Saha Thai's home market sales and
the resellers' home market sales, no level of trade adjustment was
granted.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the
U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See
Change in Policy Regarding Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (March 8,
1996). Section 773A(a) directs the Department to use a daily exchange
rate in order to convert foreign currencies into U.S. dollars unless
the daily rate involves a fluctuation. It is the Department's practice
to find that a fluctuation exists when the daily exchange rate differs
from the benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark is defined as
the moving average of rates for the past 40 business days. When we
determine a fluctuation to have existed, we substitute the benchmark
rate for the daily rate, in accordance with established practice.
Preliminary Results of the Review
We preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average
dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saha Thai/SAF........................... 3/1/96-2/28/97 1.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication or the
first business day thereafter. Case briefs and/or other written
comments from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30
days after the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to
written comments, limited to issues raised in those comments, may be
filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this
notice. The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis
of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days from the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. We calculated importer-specific ad
valorem duty assessment rates for the class or kind of merchandise
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated
for the examined sales made during the POR to the total customs value
of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed
uniformly on all entries that particular importer made during the POR.
(This is equivalent to dividing the total amount of the antidumping
duties, which are calculated by taking the difference between statutory
NV and statutory EP, by the total statutory EP value of the sales
compared, and adjusting the result by the average difference between EP
and customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR). Upon
completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon the
publication of the final results of these administrative reviews for
all shipments of circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from
Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or
after the publication date, as provided for by Section 751(a)(2)(c) of
the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be
that established in the final results of this review; (2) for
previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the
cash deposit rate 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 LTFV 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; (4) the
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be 15.67 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by
the LTFV investigation. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain
in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
[[Page 16979]]
This notice serves as a preliminary 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.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in
accordance with section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR
353.22.
Dated: March 31, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-9091 Filed 4-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
