[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39071-39072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19395]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-809]
Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea;
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 June 16, 1998, the Department of Commerce published the
final results of administrative review of the antidumping order on
circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea (63 FR
32833). The period of review is November 1, 1995, through October 31,
1996. Subsequent to the publication of the final results, we received
comments from respondents and petitioners alleging various ministerial
errors. After analyzing the comments submitted, we are amending our
final results to correct certain ministerial errors.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marian Wells or Zak Smith;
Antidumping/Countervailing Duty Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, US Department of
Commerce; 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone numbers (202) 482-6309 or (202) 482-1279, respectively.
Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930
(``the Act''), as amended, are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Additionally, unless otherwise
indicated all citations to the Department of Commerce's (``the
Department's'') regulations are to 19 CFR part 353 (April 1997).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 16, 1998, the Department published the final results of
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded
non-alloy steel pipe from Korea covering the period November 1, 1995,
through October 31, 1996 (see, Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe
from Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63
FR 32833 (``Final Results''). Subsequently, the following interested
parties submitted ministerial error allegations: SeAH Steel Coporation
(``SeAH'') and Hyundai Pipe Company Limited (``Hyundai'')(collectively
``the respondents''), and Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation, Sawhill
Tubular Division-Armco, Inc., and Wheatland Tube Company (collectively
``the petitioners'').
A summary of each allegation along with the Department's response
is included below. We are hereby amending our final results, pursuant
to 19 CFR 353.28(c), to reflect the correction of those errors which
are clerical in nature.
Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations
Allegation 1: Hyundai alleges that in the concordance program, the
Department inadvertently used a different date of sale for Hyundai's
U.S. sales than that specified in the Final Results.
Department's Position: We agree with Hyundai and have altered the
concordance program such that the appropriate date of sale, as
discussed in our Final Results, is used in both the margin and
concordance programs.
Allegation 2: Respondents allege that in the concordance program
the Department inadvertently applied its general and administrative
expenses (G&A) and interest expense adjustment factor on a compounding
basis for each
[[Page 39072]]
subsequent sale within a control number.
Department's Position: We agree with respondents and have altered
the concordance program in order to eliminate the compounding of the
adjustment factor for G&A and interest expenses.
Allegation 3: SeAH states that the Department limited the coverage
of U.S. sales to the period November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996
and, in doing so, excluded sales made prior to November 1, 1995, but
entered during the period of review (``POR'') from the concordance
program. The petitioners argue that the Department correctly limited
the sales analyzed to those sales made during the POR.
SeAH also asserts that the Department excluded sales from the year
1995 by incorrectly naming the months of 1995 in the concordance
program. According to SeAH, this resulted in the absence of all 1995
sales in the concordance table and therefore, the use of constructed
value for all 1995 sales.
SeAH further states that the Department has used two different
sales date variables in the concordance and margin programs.
Department's Position: We agree with SeAH on all three issues.
Accordingly, we have altered the concordance program in order to
include export price (EP) sales made before the POR but entered during
the POR (see, comment 2 of the Final Results, at 32836). Furthermore,
since we incorrectly named the variable representing sales during 1995,
we have altered the concordance program to correct this problem.
Finally, we corrected the inconsistent use of date variables in the
margin program by using the contract date for all EP sales. For
constructed export price (``CEP'') sales, we use the variable SALEDTU
(sale date) as discussed in our Final Results.
Allegation 4: SeAH maintains that the Department incorrectly
excluded certain sales with entry dates during the POR in its margin
analysis program.
Department's Position: We agree with SeAH. However, this error only
applies to EP sales. For EP sales, we have substituted the field name
ENTRDTU for SHIPDT2U in the margin analysis program to correct this
error.
Allegation 5: SeAH alleges that the Department double counted U.S.
commissions by adding the amount of commissions to the foreign market
price and deducting commissions from U.S. price.
Department's Position: We agree with SeAH. To correct this error,
we have eliminated the deduction of commissions in the calculation of
U.S. price.
Allegation 6: SeAH states that the Department's adjustment to duty
drawback was incorrectly calculated for CEP sales. SeAH argues that the
Department has negated the claimed duty drawback and calculated a
downward adjustment to the U.S. price.
Department's Position: We agree with SeAH. To correct this error,
we have recalculated the duty drawback for SeAH's CEP sales (see SeAH
Correction of Ministerial Errors Calculation Memorandum, June 9, 1998).
Allegation 7: Petitioners argue that the Department neglected to
include any selling expenses in the formula for calculating constructed
value (``CV'') profit while including such expenses when calculating
total CV.
Department's Position: We disagree with petitioners that we made a
ministerial error when calculating CV profit. When calculating CV
profit we applied the profit rate to a cost of production figure
exclusive of certain selling expenses. We did this because the profit
rate was also calculated on a basis exclusive of the same selling
expenses. Thus, we intentionally did not include selling expenses when
calculating CV profit, and therefore, this is not a ministerial error.
Amended Final Results of Review
As a result of the amended margin calculations, the following
weighted-average percentage margins exist for the period November 1,
1995 through October 31, 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Manufacturer/Exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai.................................................... 2.64
SeAH....................................................... 2.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the methodology in the Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Termination of
Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea
(62 FR 55574), October 27, 1997, we calculated exporter/importer-
specific assessment values by dividing the total antidumping duties due
for each importer by the number of tons used to determine the duties
due. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting per-ton
dollar amount against each ton of the merchandise entered by these
importers during the review period.
We will also direct the Customs Service to collect cash deposits of
estimated antidumping duties on all appropriate entries in accordance
with the procedures discussed in the Final Results and as amended by
this determination. The amended 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 this
notice and 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 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.
We are issuing and publishing this determination in accordance with
sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.28(c).
Dated: July 15, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-19395 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
