[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33575-33577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15622]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[A-469-806]
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Spain
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok or William Crow, Office of
Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone (202) 482-4162 or 482-0116, respectively.
Final Determination
We determine that oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Spain are
being sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in
section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The
estimated margins are shown in the ``Suspension of Liquidation''
section of this notice.
Case History
Since the preliminary determination of sales at less than fair
value in this investigation on January 26, 1995 (60 FR 6516, February
2, 1995), the following events have occurred. On February 8, 1995, (60
FR 8632, February 15, 1995) the Department postponed the final
determination in accordance with section 735(a)(2) of the Act and 19
CFR 353.20(b)(1).
In March 1995, the Department conducted its sales and cost
verifications of the respondent, Tubos Reunidos (``TR'') in Spain.
Verification reports were issued in April and May 1995.
On May 9, 1995, the petitioners and TR submitted case briefs.
Rebuttal briefs were submitted by both parties on May 16, 1995. On May
17, 1995, the Department held a public hearing.
Scope of the Investigation
For purposes of this investigation, OCTG are hollow steel products
of circular cross-section, including oil well casing, tubing, and drill
pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy),
whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American
Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished
or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG
products). This scope does not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe
containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The OCTG subject to this
investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers:
7304.20.10.10, 7304.20.10.20, 7304.20.10.30, 7304.20.10.40,
7304.20.10.50, 7304.20.10.60, 7304.20.10.80, 7304.20.20.10,
7304.20.20.20, 7304.20.20.30, 7304.20.20.40, 7304.20.20.50,
7304.20.20.60, 7304.20.20.80, 7304.20.30.10, 7304.20.30.20,
7304.20.30.30, 7304.20.30.40, 7304.20.30.50, 7304.20.30.60,
7304.20.30.80, 7304.20.40.10, 7304.20.40.20, 7304.20.40.30,
7304.20.40.40, 7304.20.40.50, 7304.20.40.60, 7304.20.40.80,
7304.20.50.15, 7304.20.50.30, 7304.20.50.45, 7304.20.50.60,
7304.20.50.75, 7304.20.60.15, 7304.20.60.30, 7304.20.60.45,
7304.20.60.60, 7304.20.60.75, 7304.20.70.00, 7304.20.80.30,
7304.20.80.45, 7304.20.80.60, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00,
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90,
7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10,
7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50.
After the publication of the preliminary determination, we found
that HTSUS item numbers 7304.20.10.00, 7304.20.20.00, 7304.20.30.00,
7304.20.40.00, 7304.20.50.10, 7304.20.50.50, 7304.20.60.10,
7304.20.60.50, and 7304.20.80.00 were no longer valid HTSUS item
numbers. Accordingly, these numbers have been deleted from the scope
definition.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
investigation is dispositive.
Period of Investigation
The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 1994, through June
30, 1994.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Statute and to the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Best Information Available (BIA)
We have determined that TR's questionnaire responses provide an
inadequate basis for estimating dumping margins. At verification, we
discovered significant omissions, discrepancies, and a large number of
errors in TR's responses, as well as an overall lack of support for
certain of TR's sales data. Instead of reporting the actual prices
charged to the first unrelated U.S. customers, as requested by the
Department, TR incorrectly reported the U.S. prices invoiced to its
related subsidiary, and failed to provide adequate support
documentation at verification for the actual prices invoiced to the
U.S. customers. TR omitted reporting all charges in the U.S. market for
freight, guarantee and return credits and did not provide adequate
support documentation at verification for these charges. TR also
omitted reporting the sale of certain OCTG products, and provided no
evidence at verification that the sales of these products were not
covered by the scope of this investigation. In its responses, TR stated
that its home market was not viable with respect to the sale of the
[[Page 33576]] subject merchandise. However, the sales of certain OCTG
products discovered at verification indicate a viable home market,
thereby making the use of a third country market, instead of the home
market as a basis for determining foreign market value, questionable.
Finally, in addition to the significant omissions, the charges and
adjustments reported by TR were replete with discrepancies and errors,
making it impossible for the Department to conduct a complete
verification of TR's responses.
In order to determine whether sales are made in the United States
at less than fair value, it is critical that the Department be provided
with accurate and reliable sales information to be used in its
analysis. Because of the inaccuracies discovered in TR's submitted
information, the Department was unable to verify that information, as
required by section 776(1) of the Act. That section of the Act provides
that, if the Department is unable to verify, within the time specified,
the accuracy and completeness of the factual information submitted, it
shall use BIA as the basis for its determination. Consequently, we have
based this determination on BIA.
In determining what rate to use as BIA, the Department follows a
two-tiered BIA methodology, whereby the Department may impose the most
adverse rate upon those respondents who refuse to cooperate or
otherwise impede the proceeding, or assign a lower rate for those
respondents who have cooperated in an investigation. When a company is
determined to be uncooperative, it has been the Department's practice
to apply the highest rate alleged in the petition as BIA. When a
company is determined to be cooperative, it has been the Department's
practice to apply as BIA the higher of: (1) The average of the margins
in the petition; or (2) the calculated margin for another firm for the
same class or kind of merchandise from the same country. This
methodology for assigning BIA has been upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (See Allied-Signal Aerospace Co. v.
the United States, Slip Op. 93-1049 (Fed Cir. June 22, 1993); see also
Krupp Stahl AG. et al v. the United States, Slip Op. 93-84 (CIT May 26,
1993).)
In spite of the numerous errors in its response, we have determined
that TR was cooperative during this proceeding and have assigned to it
a cooperative BIA margin of 11.95 percent, based on the average of the
margins alleged in the petition. For further information on the use of
a cooperative BIA margin, see the ``DOC Position'' section of this
notice.
Verification
As provided in section 776(b) of the Act, we attempted to verify
TR's information for purposes of the final determination. However,
given the significant discrepancies encountered at verification, the
use of the respondent's information in the final determination was not
possible.
Interested Party Comments
Comment 1--Use of Total Uncooperative BIA
The petitioners maintain that because of the gravity of the
mistakes made by TR, the Department should assign to TR an
uncooperative BIA margin of 18.6 percent. They point to the
verification report which shows that TR failed to report the actual
price as invoiced to the first unrelated U.S. customer, and note that
many other discrepancies and omissions were found by the Department at
verification.
TR maintains that the record clearly reflects that it has
cooperated fully with the Department in this investigation, submitting
hundreds of pages of responses to the Department questionnaires and
supplemental questionnaires within the time allowed. According to the
respondent, due to the tight time constraints of antidumping
investigations, a number of errors have been made, many of which came
to light in preparing documentation for verification. TR maintains that
it promptly and fully disclosed the errors to the Department as soon as
the respondent became aware of such errors.
Moreover, TR contends that only following receipt of the
verification outline on March 7, 1995, did TR's officials, in the
course of preparing the payment documentation for verification, see the
need to refer to the actual invoices re-issued by TR America, inclusive
of the inland freight. TR maintains that, even if it had realized the
need earlier to report to the Department the actual invoiced prices
inclusive of the U.S. inland freight expenses, it would not have
changed the way in which the sales listing was ultimately prepared. TR
states that, in order to be able to provide a timely response to the
Department's questionnaire, it was necessary to report sales data as it
was reflected in TR's computer in Spain. Furthermore, TR argues that it
was appropriate not to report sales of class ``C'' OCTG and couplings
stock because these products are not covered in the scope of the
investigation. Finally, TR claims that the errors and discrepancies
discovered for the remaining sales data are insignificant and offset
each other. Therefore, the respondent requests that the Department use
the information gathered at verification as a basis for TR's margin
calculation in the final determination.
DOC Position
As discussed in the BIA section of this notice, the discrepancies
found in TR's response render it unusable. The Department, however,
disagrees with the petitioners on assigning TR a non-cooperative BIA
margin. Although much of the information found to be deficient could
not be remedied at verification, TR made a good faith effort by
responding to the Department's questionnaire, by submitting a
verifiable cost of production questionnaire response, and by attempting
to cooperate at the sales verification. We also believe that the
inaccuracy of TR's responses is the result of inadvertent errors in its
reporting, and poor verification preparation, not a lack of cooperation
on the part of the respondent. Thus, we believe that assigning TR a
cooperative BIA margin is appropriate.
Because this final determination is based on BIA, all other
comments are moot.
Suspension of Liquidation
Pursuant to the results of this final determination, we will
instruct the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or posting of a
bond equal to the estimated final dumping margin, as shown below for
entries of OCTG from Spain that are entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption from the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register. The suspension of liquidation will remain in
effect until further notice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Producer/manufacturer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tubos Reunidos S.A.......................................... 11.95
All Others.................................................. 11.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Notification
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we have notified the
ITC of our determination. The ITC will make its determination whether
these imports materially injure, or threaten injury to, a U.S. industry
within 75 days of the publication of this notice, in accordance with
section 735(b)(3) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material
injury or threat of material injury does not exist, [[Page 33577]] the
proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted as a result of
the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled. However, if
the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will
issue an antidumping duty order.
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) in this investigation of their
responsibility covering the return or destruction of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 353.34(d).
Failure to comply is a violation of the APO.
This determination is published pursuant to section 735(d) of the
Act (19 U.S.C. 1673(d)) and 19 CFR 353.20.
Dated: June 19, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-15622 Filed 6-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
