[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34190-34194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16244]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-201-805]
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; and
Partial Revocation
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review and partial revocation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by one respondent, the Department of
Commerce (the Department) is conducting two administrative reviews of
the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and
tube from Mexico (A-201-805). These reviews cover one manufacturer/
exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during two
periods of review (POR): April 28, 1992, through October 31, 1993, (the
92/93 POR) and November 1, 1993, through October 31, 1994 (the 93/94
POR).
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
the foreign market value (FMV) for the first period of review (POR). If
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of
administrative reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess
antidumping duties based upon the difference between the United States
price (USP) and the FMV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary
results. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested
to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a
brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATES: June 25, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drury, Nancy Decker or Linda
Ludwig, Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7866, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482-0195 (Drury), (202) 482-0196 (Decker), or (202)
482-3833 (Ludwig).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute and to the
Department's regulations are references to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Background
The Department published an antidumping duty order on circular
welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico on November 2, 1992
(57 FR 49453). The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to
Request an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for
the 92/93 POR on November 3, 1993 (58 FR 58682). On November 19, 1993,
respondent Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') requested that the Department
conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico. On November
30, 1993, respondent Tuberia Nacional S.A. de C.V. (``TUNA'') requested
that the Department conduct an administrative review of this order. We
initiated this review on January 18, 1994. See 59 FR 2593 (January 18,
1994).
The Department published a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an
Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order for the 93/94 POR
on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56034). On November 29, 1994, respondent
Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (``Hylsa'') requested that the Department conduct an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded
non-alloy steel pipe and tube from Mexico. On November 30, 1994,
respondent Western American Manufacturing, Inc. (``Western American'')
requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of this
order. We initiated this review on December 15, 1994. See 59 FR 64650
(December 15, 1994).
The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'').
Partial Termination of Review
On November 30, 1995, TUNA withdrew its request for administrative
review for the 92/93 POR, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). Ordinarily,
parties have 90 days from the date of publication of notice of
initiation within which to withdraw a request for review. In this case,
the record indicates that petitioners have no objection to the
withdrawal and in fact had previously requested that the Department
terminate the review of TUNA (See Letter to Secretary of Commerce from
R. Alan Luberda, dated May 11, 1994). In addition, the review of TUNA
has not progressed substantially and there would be no undue burden on
the parties or the Department as a result of said withdrawal.
Therefore, the Department has determined that it would be reasonable to
grant the withdrawal at this time. In accordance with section
353.22(a)(5) of the Department's regulations, the Department has
terminated the 92/93 administrative review insofar as it regards TUNA.
On March 14, 1995, Western American withdrew its request for
administrative review for the 93/94 POR, pursuant to 19 CFR
353.22(a)(5). Ordinarily, parties have 90 days from the date of
publication of notice of initiation within which to withdraw a request
for review. In this case, the
[[Page 34191]]
record indicates that petitioners have no objection to the withdrawal.
In addition, the review of Western American has not progressed
substantially and there would be no undue burden on the parties or the
Department as a result of said withdrawal. Therefore, the Department
has determined that it would be reasonable to grant the withdrawal at
this time. In accordance with section 353.22(a)(5) of the Department's
regulations, the Department has terminated the 93/94 administrative
review insofar as it regards to Western American.
Scope of the Review
The review of ``circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube''
covers products of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4
millimeters (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).
Those pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipe, though they
may also be called structural or mechanical tubing in certain
applications. Standard pipes and tubes 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 and mechanical applications, such
as for fence tubing, and for protection of electrical wiring, such as
conduit shells.
The scope is not limited to standard pipe and fence tubing, or
those types of mechanical and structural pipe that are used in standard
pipe applications. 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,
cold-drawn or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for
redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit. In
accordance with the Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry (56
FR 11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L line pipe
specification, or pipe certified to both the API 5L line pipe
specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard pipe
specifications, which fall within the physical parameters as outlined
above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas
pipelines, are outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.
Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) subheadings: 7306.3010.00,
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 HTS item numbers are provided
for convenience and customs purposes. The written descriptions remain
dispositive.
The 92/93 POR is April 28, 1992 through October 31, 1993, and the
93/94 POR is November 1, 1993 through October 31, 1994. Subsequent to
the partial terminations above, these reviews cover sales of circular
welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube by Hylsa.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, we verified
information provided by the respondent using standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's
facilities, the examination of relevant sales and financial records,
and selection of original documentation containing relevant
information. Our verification results are outlined in the public
versions of the verification reports.
Use of Best Information Available (92/93 POR)
Section 776(b) of the Tariff Act provides that, in making a final
determination in an administrative review, if the Department ``is
unable to verify the accuracy of the information submitted, it shall
use the best information available to it as the basis for its action. *
* *'' In addition, section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to
use BIA ``whenever a party or any other person refuses or is unable to
produce information requested in a timely manner or in the form
required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation. * * *''
In deciding what to use as BIA, section 353.37(b) of our
regulations provides that we may take into account whether a party
refuses to provide information. For purposes of these reviews, and in
accordance with our practice, we have used the more adverse BIA--
generally the highest rate for any company for the same class or kind
of merchandise from the same country from this or any prior segment of
the proceeding, including the less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation--whenever a company refused to cooperate with the
Department or otherwise significantly impeded the proceeding. When a
company substantially cooperated with our requests for information, but
we were unable to verify information it provided or it failed to
provide all information requested in a timely manner or in the form
requested, we used as BIA the higher of (1) the highest rate (including
the ``all others'' rate) ever applicable to the firm for the same class
or kind of merchandise from the same country from either the LTFV
investigation or a prior administrative review; or (2) the highest
calculated rate in this review for any firm for the same class or kind
of merchandise from the same country.
We preliminarily determine that the use of best information
available (BIA), in accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, is
appropriate for Hylsa for the 92/93 POR. We have assigned a cooperative
(second-tier) BIA rate to the company for these preliminary results,
which is the rate assigned to Hylsa during the original investigation.
When a company substantially cooperates with our requests for
information but we are unable to verify the information it provided or
the company fails to provide complete or accurate information, we
assign that company second-tier BIA. (See Allied Signal v. United
States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cia. 1993) (concluding that the
Department's two-tiered BIA methodology, under which cooperating
companies are assigned the lower, ``second tier'' BIA rate, is
reasonable).)
Hylsa cooperated with our requests for information and agreed to
verification. However, the multiple and pervasive nature of errors and
omissions in the information provided by Hylsa prevented the Department
from relying on Hylsa's response for these preliminary results. For
example, despite our attempts, we were unable to verify either Hylsa's
total quantity and value of home-market sales or its value of U.S.
sales of subject merchandise. In addition, we found a significant
discrepancy between reported and actual third-country sales of subject
merchandise. (See verification report.)
Establishing the completeness of the response with respect to the
quantity and value of sales in both the home and U.S. markets is a very
significant element of verification. However, as a result of
verification, Hylsa subsequently acknowledged that it had failed to
report approximately 10% of its sales of subject merchandise in the
home market for the period of review. Moreover, Hylsa did not retain
the complete database used to develop its response to the Department.
As a result, we were unable to reconcile the quantity and value figures
for the home market reported to the Department with the company's
audited financial statements. In addition, Hylsa failed to prepare a
detailed analysis of home market sales in a pre-selected month of the
POR as requested in our verification outline. Finally, Hylsa was unable
to
[[Page 34192]]
explain the discrepancy in U.S. sales value. (See verification report.)
The completeness of both the home market and U.S. sales databases
is essential because both are used to calculate the dumping duties. As
the Department stated in Silicon Metal From Brazil: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke
in Part, 62 FR 1954 (January 14, 1996), it is the obligation of
respondents to provide an accurate and complete response prior to
verification so that the Department may have the opportunity to analyze
fully the information and other parties are able to review and comment
on it. Verification is intended to establish the accuracy and
completeness of a response rather than to supplement and reconstruct
the information to fit the requirements of the Department.
``Establishing the completeness of the response with respect to the
sales of the subject merchandise in the United States is a very
significant element of the verification.'' Antifriction Bearings (Other
Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of
Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 66742 (December 17, 1996). ``The
completeness of the U.S. sales database is essential because it is used
to calculate the dumping duties.'' Id. It is our practice at
verification to examine a selected portion of both databases, rather
than the entire database, to test the accuracy and completeness of
information that the company provided. The CIT has upheld this
practice. See Bomont Industries v. United States, 733 F. Supp. 1507,
1508 (CIT 1990) (``verification is like an audit, the purpose of which
is to test information provided by a party for accuracy and
completeness. Normally an audit entails selective examination rather
than testing of an entire universe.''); See also Monsanto Co. v. United
States, 698 F.Supp. 275, 281 (CIT 1988) (``verification is a spot check
and is not intended to be an exhaustive examination of the respondent's
business''). Where the Department finds discrepancies in the portion
which it examines, it must judge the effect on the unexamined portion
of the response. In the instant case, the loss of a database used to
prepare the original response to the Department prevented Hylsa from
reconciling aggregate total figures reported to the Department with the
company's financial statements. While the company was generally able to
tie monthly financial statements to a monthly sales statistics
database, it had no explanation as to the remaining discrepancies
between this database and the information submitted to the Department.
In addition, the company's admission that it had failed to report
approximately 10 percent of home market sales of subject merchandise
further throws the reported quantity and value figures into doubt.
Since the Department was unable to reconcile aggregate totals, we
requested (as we did in the verification outline) that Hylsa prepare a
worksheet tying the pre-selected month to the response submitted to the
Department. The pre-selected month corresponded to the month when most
of the U.S. sales occurred and most likely would have been used in the
calculation of the dumping duties. The company stated that it could not
prepare the requested worksheet without the missing database for that
month. Department officials then requested a listing of sales from a
different month in an attempt to tie it to the sales statistics
database. When a Department official selected a particular sale and
requested supporting documentation, the company was unable to produce
it at that time. Late on the last day, Hylsa indicated that it could
provide the supporting documentation. By that time, however, there was
insufficient time for Department officials to verify and establish the
accuracy of the documents. (See verification report.)
We believe that the use of total BIA is warranted. The inability of
Hylsa to reconcile aggregate quantities and values to its financial
statements throws into doubt the accuracy of Hylsa's reported
transaction-specific sales. Since such sales are used to calculate FMV
on a monthly basis, the addition or omission of home-market sales can
have a large impact on the final margin. If there are a small number of
sales to the U.S. in relation to the home-market, or sales are bunched
in particular months, or certain products are only sold in a limited
number of months, or other conditions exist, the potential for
distortion or manipulation by omitting or creating home-market sales is
particularly great. We must be certain that all sales are reported
accurately and completely to address this concern, and reconciling
quantity and value is one of the most fundamental ways of ensuring
accuracy and completeness. Without that certainty, we do not believe
that it is possible to calculate an accurate margin for this POR.
As explained above, the multiple and pervasive nature of errors and
omissions in the information provided by Hylsa prevented the
Department's reliance on its submissions for these preliminary results.
See, e.g. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. United States, 910 F.Supp. 679 (CIT
1995) (upholding the Department's use of second-tier BIA where the
Department found that respondent's errors and omissions were multiple
and pervasive); National Steel Corp. v. United States, 870 F.Supp. 1130
(CIT 1994) (approving the Department's use of BIA where respondent
omitted significant information from submissions); Tatung Co. v. United
States, 18 C.I.T. 1137 (1994) (upholding the Department's use of BIA
due to omissions and errors in respondent's submission). Therefore, in
accordance with section 776(b) of the Tariff Act, the inability to
verify aggregate quantity and value figures was the determining factor
in our decision to apply BIA to the company's response for the 92/93
POR. See decision memorandum, February 28, 1997.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, for the 93/94 POR,
we considered each circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube
product produced by Hylsa, covered by the descriptions in the ``Scope
of the Review'' section of this notice, supra, and sold in the home
market during the POR, to be such or similar merchandise for purposes
of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales of
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube. For each of the products
produced by Hylsa within the scope of the A-201-805 order, we examined
the categories of merchandise listed in Section 771 (16) of the Act for
purposes of model matching. Where there were no sales of identical
merchandise in the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we compared
U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign like product on the basis
of the characteristics listed in Appendix VI of the Department's April
24, 1996 antidumping questionnaire. In making the product comparisons,
we matched each foreign like product based on the physical
characteristics reported by the respondent and verified by the
Department. Where sales were made in the home market on a different
weight basis from the U.S. market (e.g. theoretical versus actual
weight), we converted all quantities to the same weight basis, using
the conversion factors supplied by Hylsa, before making our fair-value
comparisons. We compared individual U.S. transactions to monthly
weighted average FMVs.
[[Page 34193]]
Date of Sale
For the 93/94 POR, depending on the channel of trade and on the
date after which the key terms of sale could not be changed, we treated
one of the following dates as the date of the sale: The date of the
invoice or the date of shipment.
United States Price
All of Hylsa's U.S. sales in the 93/94 POR were based on the price
to the first unrelated purchaser in the United States. The Department
determined that purchase price, as defined in section 772 of the Tariff
Act, was the appropriate basis for calculating USP. We made adjustments
to purchase price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight,
foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, insurance, U.S.
inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. Customs duties.
Foreign Market Value
Based on a comparison of the volume of home market and third
country sales, we determined that the home market was viable.
Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(A) of the Act, we based
FMV on the packed, delivered price to unrelated purchasers in the home
market. Based on our verification of home-market sales responses, we
are disallowing an adjustment for a steel supplier rebate. We have
previously outlined our reasons for rejecting this adjustment. See
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 57 FR 42953 (September
17, 1992) (``this rebate program does not qualify for a circumstance of
sale adjustment because it reflects a difference in production costs,
rather than a difference in selling expenses. Adjustments for
circumstance of sale are, by definition, limited to consideration of a
seller's marketing practices and expenses, and are unaffected by
conditions affecting production''); See also Circular Welded Non-Alloy
Steel Pipe and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 68708 (December 30, 1996).
We made adjustments to FMV for differences in cost attributable to
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, pursuant to
section 773(a)(4)(C) of the Act.
Cost-of-Production Analysis
Petitioners alleged, on July 23, 1996 with respect to the 93/94
POR, that Hylsa sold circular welded non-alloy steel pipes and tubes in
the home market at prices below COP. Based on this allegation, in
accordance with Section 773(b) of the Act, the Department determined,
on September 30, 1996, that it had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that Hylsa had sold the subject merchandise in the home market
at prices below its COP. See Letter to Shearman and Sterling and
Decision Memorandum (September 30, 1996). We therefore initiated a cost
investigation with regard to Hylsa for the 93/94 POR in order to
determine whether the respondent made home-market sales during the 93/
94 POR at prices below its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of
the Act.
In accordance with 19 CFR 353.51(c), we calculated COP for Hylsa as
the sum of reported materials, labor, factory overhead, and general
expenses. We compared COP to home market prices, net of price
adjustments, discounts, and movement expenses.
In accordance with section 773(b) of the Act, in determining
whether to disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we
examined whether such sales were made in substantial quantities over an
extended period of time, and whether such sales were made at prices
which permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of
time in the normal course of trade.
In accordance with our normal practice, for each model for which
less than 10 percent, by quantity, of the home market sales during the
POR were made at prices below COP, we included all sales of that model
in the computation of FMV. For each model for which 10 percent or more,
but less than 90 percent, of the home market sales during the POR were
priced below COP, we excluded those sales priced below COP, provided
that they were made over an extended period of time. For each model for
which 90 percent or more of the home market sales during the POR were
priced below COP and were made over an extended period of time, we
disregarded all sales of that model in our calculation and, in
accordance with section 773(b) of the Tariff Act, we used the
constructed value (CV) of those models, as described below. See, e.g.,
Mechanical Transfer Presses From Japan, Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 59 FR 9958 (March 2, 1994).
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, to determine
whether sales below cost had been made over an extended period of time,
we compared the number of months in which sales below cost occurred for
a particular model to the number of months in which that model was
sold. If the model was sold in fewer than three months, we did not
disregard below-cost sales unless there were below-cost sales of that
model in each month. If a model was sold in three or more months, we
did not disregard below-cost sales unless there were sales below cost
in at least three of the months. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts
Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan and Tapered Roller
Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components
Thereof, From Japan; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 58 FR 64720, 64729 (December 8, 1993).
Because Hylsa provided no indication that its below-cost sales of
models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' and the ``between 10 and
90 percent'' categories were at prices that would permit recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time and in the normal course
of trade, we disregarded those sales of models within the ``10 to 90
percent'' category which were made below cost over an extended period
of time. In addition, as a result of our COP test for home market sales
of models within the ``greater than 90 percent'' category, we based FMV
on CV for all U.S. sales for which more than 90 percent of sales of the
comparison home market model occurred below COP. Finally, where we
found, for certain of Hylsa's models, home market sales for which less
than 10 percent were made below COP, we used all home market sales of
these models in our comparisons.
We also used CV as FMV for those U.S. sales for which there was no
sale of such or similar merchandise in the home market. We calculated
CV in accordance with section 773(e) of the Act. We included the cost
of materials, labor, and factory overhead in our calculations. Where
the general expenses were less than the statutory minimum of 10 percent
of the cost of manufacture (COM), we calculated general expenses as 10
percent of the COM. Where the actual profits were less than the
statutory minimum of 8 percent of the COM plus general expenses, we
calculated profit as 8 percent of the sum of COM plus general expenses.
Based on our verification of Hylsa's cost response, we adjusted Hylsa's
reported COP and CV as described below.
Contrary to specific written instructions from the Department, we
found that Hylsa failed to report weighted-average costs by product for
the entire POR. Instead, Hylsa reported six months of costs by product
which were not weight-averaged. As best information available, we made
the following changes. Since respondent did not provide twelve months
of
[[Page 34194]]
weighted-average cost data, we used as best information available the
highest monthly cost by product as the actual cost for the POR. We
segregated home-market sales by finish into galvanized and non-
galvanized products. As best information available, we took the highest
product cost in each of these two groups and applied it to all products
within the specific groups.
In accordance with section 773 of the Act, for those U.S. models
for which we were able to find a home market such or similar match that
had sufficient above-cost sales, we calculated FMV based on the packed,
F.O.B., ex-factory, or delivered prices to unrelated purchasers in the
home market. We made adjustments, where applicable, for post-sale
inland freight and for home market direct expenses. We also adjusted
FMV for differences in circumstances of sale based on direct selling
expenses.
Reimbursement
Petitioners requested that the Department examine the issue of
reimbursement where the producer/exporter is the importer of record.
Section 353.26 of the Department's regulations states that ``[i]n
calculating the United States price, the Secretary will deduct the
amount of any antidumping duty which the producer or reseller: (i)
[P]aid directly on behalf of the importer; or (ii) [r]eimbursed to the
importer.'' 19 CFR 353.26(a)(1). The Department's interpretation of the
regulation is that it anticipates that separate corporate entities must
exist as producer/reseller and importer in order to invoke the
regulation. In the present case, the U.S. importer of record, Hylsa, is
also the same corporate entity that produces and exports the subject
merchandise. In such a case, there is no separate company or separate
U.S. subsidiary, wholly owned or otherwise, that acts as the importer
of record. Rather, the importer and exporter are one and the same
corporate entity. In this case, there can be no payment made to, or on
behalf of, the importer within the meaning of the regulation.
Accordingly, the Department interprets its reimbursement regulation as
inapplicable in this case.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our comparison of USP to FMV we preliminarily
determine that the following margin exists:
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipes and Tubes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted--average
Producer/manufacturer/exporter margin (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hylsa 92/93.......................................... 32.62
Hylsa 93/94.......................................... 27.66
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested parties may request disclosure within 5 days of the date
of publication of this notice and 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 written comments from interested parties may be submitted
no 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 these administrative reviews including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between the USP and FMV may vary from the percentages
stated above.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section
751(a)(1) of the Act:
(1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate
established in the final results of the 93/94 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; and (4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
review, the cash deposit rate will be 32.62 percent. This is the ``all
others'' rate from the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
From Mexico, 57 FR 42953 (September 17, 1992).
This notice also 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 Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: June 15, 1999.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-16244 Filed 6-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
