[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18170]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 26, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-357-810, A-433-805, A-475-816, A-588-835, A-580-825, A-201-817, and
A-469-806]
Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Oil Country
Tubular Goods From Argentina, Austria, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and
Spain
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 26, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Darzenta or Cameron Werker,
Office of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone
(202) 482-6320 or 482-3874.
INITIATION OF INVESTIGATIONS:
The Petition
On June 30, 1994, we received seven petitions filed in proper form
by: Koppel Steel Corporation, USS/Kobe Steel Company, and U.S. Steel
Group (a unit of USX Corporation) with respect to Austria, Argentina,
and Spain; Koppel Steel Corporation and U.S. Steel Group with respect
to Japan; North Star Steel Ohio (a division of North Star Steel
Corporation) with respect to Italy and Mexico; and Bellville Tube
Corporation, IPSCO Steel, Inc., and Maverick Tube Corporation with
respect to Korea. In accordance with Section 732(b) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 353.12 (1994), the petitioners
allege that oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Argentina, Austria,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Spain are being, or are likely to be,
sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of
section 731 of the Act, and that these imports are materially injuring,
or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Petitioners have stated that they have standing to file the
petitions because they are interested parties, as defined under section
771(9)(C) of the Act, and because the petitions were filed on behalf of
the U.S. industry producing the subject merchandise. If any interested
party, as described under paragraphs (C), (D), (E), or (F) of section
771(9) of the Act, wishes to register support for, or opposition to,
these petitions, it should file a written notification with the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Under the Department's regulations, any producer or reseller
seeking exclusion from a potential antidumping duty order must submit
its request for exclusion within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice. The procedures and requirements are contained in 19 CFR
353.14.
Scope of Investigations
For purposes of these investigations, 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). These petitions do not cover casing, tubing, or drill pipe
containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The OCTG subject to these
investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTS) under item numbers:
7304.20.10.00, 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,
7304.20.20.00, 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,
7304.20.30.00, 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,
7304.20.40.00, 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,
7304.20.50.10, 7304.20.50.15, 7304.20.50.30, 7304.20.50.45,
7304.20.50.50, 7304.20.50.60, 7304.20.50.75, 7304.20.60.10,
7304.20.60.15, 7304.20.60.30, 7304.20.60.45, 7304.20.60.50,
7304.20.60.60, 7304.20.60.75, 7304.20.70.00, 7304.20.80.00,
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.
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these
investigations is dispositive.
United States Price and Foreign Market Value
For purposes of these initiations, no adjustments to petitioners'
calculations were necessary. If it becomes necessary at a later date to
consider these petitions as a source of best information available
(BIA), we may review all of the bases for the petitioners' estimated
margins in determining BIA.
Argentina
Petitioners based U.S. price (USP) on a quoted transaction price of
subject merchandise produced by Siderca, an OCTG producer in Argentina,
and offered to a U.S. distributor for sale in the United States. The
sales terms of the price quote represent a sale made prior to
importation of the subject merchandise to the United States.
Petitioners calculated a net USP by subtracting ocean freight and
insurance, unloading and wharfage charges at the U.S. port of entry,
and the applicable 7.5 percent ad valorem U.S. customs duty.
Petitioners used U.S. import statistics for the month of offer to
estimate the actual average ocean freight and insurance charges for
subject merchandise subject to the price quote. Petitioners adjusted
the USP by adding an 8.3 percent cascade turnover tax and an 18 percent
value-added tax (VAT), both of which were calculated on the invoice
price net of discounts.
Petitioners stated that information regarding Siderca's sales to
third country markets was not reasonably available and, thus, they were
unable to calculate home market viability. However, petitioners assumed
the home market to be viable based on a published report estimating the
Argentine drilling market to be the seventh most active in the world.
Accordingly, petitioners based foreign market value (FMV) on home
market sales. Petitioners also based FMV on constructed value (CV).
First, petitioners stated that they used a home market sales price
of merchandise identical to that offered for sale in the United States.
Petitioners made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale
(i.e., credit) and the home market VAT. The comparison of USP to FMV
results in a negative dumping margin.
Second, petitioners calculated a CV as the basis for FMV because
Siderca allegedly sold the subject merchandise at a price substantially
below its cost of production (COP). COP was based on the production
costs of one of the U.S. producers adjusted to reflect Siderca's
production costs.
Petitioners calculated COP and CV in accordance with a methodology
acceptable to the Department. Because petitioners do not have access to
the foreign producer's proprietary data, petitioners utilized their own
cost information and adjusted for all known differences between the
U.S. and Argentine markets with publicly available information. When
practicable, petitioners used public information specific to Siderca.
Petitioners added an amount for the statutory minimum eight percent
profit and their own packing costs to the estimated COP to derive the
CV. The dumping margin of OCTG from Argentina based on a comparison of
USP to CV alleged by petitioners is 41.60 percent.
The Department is initiating a COP investigation of Siderca's home
market sales. Based on our analysis of petitioners' COP allegation, we
find that we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home
market sales are being made below the COP. In their allegation,
petitioners provided company-specific information, used a reasonable
methodology, and demonstrated that the products they used in their
calculations were representative of the broader range of OCTG products
sold by Siderca in Argentina. If, during the course of the
investigation, Siderca does not become a respondent, this COP
investigation will be terminated with no further action from the
Department.
The Department will not initiate a COP investigation for those
companies/exporters where petitioners do not provide a company-specific
allegation.
Austria
Petitioners based USP on a sale made by a U.S. trading company
related to Voest-Alpine, an Austrian producer of the subject
merchandise, to an unrelated U.S. customer. Petitioners deducted from
USP amounts for international shipment charges calculated based on U.S.
Customs data for shipments of subject merchandise during the second
half of 1993, and the applicable eight percent ad valorem U.S. customs
duty.
Petitioners demonstrated that the home market is not viable.
Specifically, petitioners illustrated that the home market shipments of
Voest-Alpine expressed as a percentage of exports to third country
markets is substantially less than five percent. Therefore, petitioners
first based FMV on third country sales. Petitioners stated that with
regards to similarity of merchandise, volume of sales, and similarity
of the Russian OCTG market relative to the U.S. OCTG market, Russia is
the appropriate third country market on which to calculate FMV.
Petitioners first based FMV on the bid of Voest-Alpine, an Austrian
producer of OCTG, to supply subject merchandise to a Russian oil
production association. The Austrian producer's offering price was
contemporaneous to the U.S. sales price on which petitioners based USP.
To calculate an ex-factory price, petitioners deducted inland freight
and made a circumstance-of-sale adjustment for the differences in
credit expenses. Based on a comparison of USP to FMV, the dumping
margin alleged by petitioners is 16.5 percent.
Petitioners also based FMV on CV because Voest-Alpine allegedly
sold the subject merchandise to Russia at prices below the COP. COP was
based on the production costs of one of the U.S. producers, adjusted to
reflect Voest-Alpine's production costs.
Petitioners calculated COP and CV in accordance with a methodology
acceptable to the Department. Because petitioners do not have access to
the foreign producer's proprietary data, petitioners utilized their own
cost information and adjusted for all known differences between the
U.S. and Austrian markets with publicly available information. When
practicable, petitioners used public information specific to Voest-
Alpine. Petitioners added to the estimated manufacturing costs an
amount for the statutory minimum ten percent selling, general, and
administrative (SG&A) expense. Petitioners then added an amount for the
statutory minimum eight percent profit and their own packing costs to
the estimated COP to derive the CV. Based on a comparison of USP to CV,
the dumping margin alleged by petitioners is 41.7 percent.
The Department is initiating a COP investigation of Voest-Alpine's
third country sales to Russia. Based on our analysis of petitioners'
COP allegation, we find that we have reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales to Russia are being made below the COP. In their
allegation, petitioners provided company-specific information, used a
reasonable methodology, and demonstrated that the products used in
their calculations were representative of the broader range of OCTG
products sold by Voest-Alpine to Russia. This COP investigation will be
terminated automatically if, during the course of the investigation,
any one of the following conditions is met: Voest-Alpine does not
become a respondent; the home market is determined to be viable; or
Russia is determined not to be an appropriate third country market on
which to base FMV.
The Department will not initiate a COP investigation for those
companies/exporters where petitioners do not provide a company-specific
allegation.
Italy
Petitioner based USP on quoted transaction prices of subject
merchandise produced by the Italian producer, Dalmine, and offered to
U.S. distributors for sale in the United States during the first
quarter of 1994. These price quotes represent sales made prior to
importation of subject merchandise to the United States. Petitioner
calculated a net USP by subtracting the foreign inland freight from the
mill to the port of export, loading and wharfage charges at the port of
export, ocean freight and insurance, U.S. terminal and handling fees,
and the applicable 6.2 percent ad valorem U.S. customs duty. Petitioner
used U.S. import statistics for the first quarter of 1994 to estimate
the actual average ocean freight and insurance charges.
Petitioner stated that it based FMV on CV because it was unable to
obtain home market or third country prices. Because Dalmine's
production costs were unavailable to petitioner, petitioner used the
production costs of a U.S. producer, adjusted to reflect Dalmine's
production costs.
Petitioner calculated CV in accordance with a methodology
acceptable to the Department. Because petitioner did not have access to
the foreign producer's proprietary data, petitioner utilized its own
cost information and adjusted for all known differences between the
U.S. and Italian markets with publicly available information. When
practicable, petitioner used public information specific to Dalmine.
Petitioners added to the estimated manufacturing costs an amount for
the statutory minimum ten percent SG&A expense. Petitioner then added
an amount for the statutory minimum eight percent profit and its own
packing cost to derive the CV. The range of dumping margins based on a
comparison of USP to CV alleged by petitioner is 41.60 percent to 49.78
percent.
Japan
For Japan, petitioners based USP on two price offers for seamless
OCTG tubing manufactured by two Japanese producers, Sumitomo and Nippon
Steel, to unrelated parties for purchase prior to importation into the
United States. Petitioners demonstrated that the products for which
these offers were made, are representative of OCTG products imported
into the United States from Japan in terms of type and manufacturing
method.
Petitioners calculated a net USP by deducting international
shipment charges such as ocean freight and marine insurance; U.S.
inland freight; U.S. handling charges including loading; U.S. port
charges such as unloading and wharfage; and the applicable 7.5 percent
ad valorem U.S. customs duty. Petitioners used the official U.S. import
statistics for the period of time corresponding to the dates of the USP
offers to estimate the actual ocean freight and marine insurance
charges.
Petitioner calculated two FMVs. First, petitioners used third
country sales prices of merchandise allegedly comparable to that
offered for sale in the United States. Specifically, petitioners used
Japanese sales contract prices for OCTG products exported to the
People's Republic of China (PRC) obtained from a Chinese trading
company, adjusted to reflect differences in circumstances of sale
(i.e., credit) between the PRC and U.S. markets.
Before resorting to third country price data, petitioners
demonstrated that the Japanese home market was not viable to serve as
the basis of FMV. Specifically, petitioners compared domestic and third
country OCTG shipment data for the period January through November
1993, and found that home market shipments expressed as a percentage of
third country shipments is substantially less than five percent.
Petitioners claimed that the PRC constituted the appropriate third
country market to serve as the basis for FMV for each Japanese producer
based on the similarity of the merchandise, the volume of sales and the
similarity of the Chinese OCTG market relative to the U.S. OCTG market.
The range of dumping margins of OCTG from Japan based on a comparison
of USP to FMV alleged by petitioners is 10.4 percent to 24.8 percent.
Second, petitioners calculated a CV as the basis for FMV because
they claimed that the Japanese producers' third country sales are being
made at prices below the COP. Because petitioners could not obtain
actual production costs for Sumitomo and Nippon Steel, they used U.S.
production costs, adjusted to reflect production costs in Japan.
Petitioners calculated COP and CV in accordance with a methodology
acceptable to the Department. Because petitioners do not have access to
the foreign producers' proprietary data, petitioners utilized their own
cost information and adjusted for all known differences between the
U.S. and Japanese markets with publicly available information. When
practicable, petitioners used public information specific to Sumitomo
and Nippon Steel. Petitioners added an amount for the statutory minimum
eight percent profit and their own packing costs to the estimated COP
to derive the CV. The range of dumping margins of OCTG from Japan based
on a comparison of USP to CV alleged by petitioners is 36.5 percent to
44.2 percent.
The Department is initiating a COP investigation of Sumitomo's and
Nippon Steel's third country sales to the PRC. Based on our analysis of
petitioners' COP allegation, we find that we have reasonable grounds to
believe or suspect that sales to the PRC are being made below the COP.
In their allegation, petitioners provided company-specific information,
used a reasonable methodology, and demonstrated that the products used
in their calculations were representative of the broader range of OCTG
products sold by Sumitomo and Nippon Steel to the PRC. This COP
investigation will be terminated automatically if, during the course of
the investigation, any one of the following conditions is met: Sumitomo
or Nippon Steel do not become respondents; the home market is
determined to be viable; and the PRC is determined not to be an
appropriate third country market on which to base FMV.
The Department will not initiate a COP investigation for those
companies/exporters where petitioners do not provide a company-specific
allegation.
Korea
Petitioners based USP on the sales price of two Korean-produced
OCTG tubing products to a U.S. distributor for sale to end users.
Petitioners made adjustments for ocean freight, port and handling
charges, the 1.9 percent ad valorem U.S. Customs duty, applicable
discounts and distributor mark-up, and end finishing costs.
Petitioners assumed that the Korean home market was not viable as
the basis for FMV. Petitioners based this assumption on a report
reviewing worldwide drilling activity, which indicated that no rigs are
expected to be in operation in Korea during 1994. Thus, petitioners
assumed that there is no OCTG market in Korea.
Petitioners selected Canada as the appropriate third country market
for calculating FMV based on the volume of sales and the similarity of
the Canadian market relative to the United States. Additionally, Canada
was the only third country for which pricing data was available to
petitioners. Specifically, petitioners based FMV on Canadian
distributor prices to end-users. Petitioners made adjustments for
inland freight, port and handling charges, ocean freight, Canadian
import duties, distributor mark-up, and end finishing costs.
The range of dumping margins of OCTG from Korea based on a
comparison of USP to FMV alleged by petitioners is 2.68 percent to
12.23 percent.
Mexico
Petitioner based USP on two price quotes for sales of OCTG
manufactured by TAMSA, a Mexican producer of OCTG, and offered for sale
in the United States. Petitioner adjusted the first price quote for
foreign port and loading fees, a Mexican Customs clearance fee, ocean
freight and insurance, U.S. import duties, U.S. terminal and unloading
fees and other movement expenses, distributor mark-up, and sales agent
fees. Petitioner made adjustments to the second price quote for foreign
inland freight, Mexican Customs processing fees, U.S. customs duties,
U.S. terminal and unloading fees and other movement charges, and sales
agent fees.
Petitioner was unable to obtain home market sales information and,
therefore, was unable to conduct a home market viability test. However,
petitioner assumed the home market to be viable based on a published
report estimating the Mexican drilling market to be one of the most
active in the world given the number of drilling rigs in operation.
Petitioner based FMV on CV because it stated that it was unable to
obtain home market prices. Petitioner used a U.S. producer as a
surrogate for the Mexican producer, TAMSA, to determine the production
costs of the subject merchandise.
Petitioner calculated CV in accordance with a methodology
acceptable to the Department. Because petitioner did not have access to
the foreign producer's proprietary data, petitioner utilized its own
cost information and adjusted for all known differences between the
U.S. and Mexican markets with publicly available information. When
practicable, petitioner used public information specific to TAMSA.
Petitioner added an amount for the statutory minimum eight percent
profit and its own packing cost to derive the CV.
The range of dumping margins of OCTG from Mexico based on a
comparison of USP to CV alleged by petitioner is 40.44 percent to 45.22
percent.
Spain
Petitioners based USP on average U.S. Customs values for seamless
carbon steel OCTG tubing derived from statistics published by the U.S.
Census Bureau for the months of August and November 1993, claiming that
actual U.S. sales price information was unobtainable. Petitioners also
claimed that seamless carbon steel OCTG tubing products are
representative of OCTG imports from Spain produced by Tubos Reunidos, a
Spanish producer of the subject merchandise which allegedly accounted
for all OCTG imports from Spain during the period April 1993 through
March 1994, the most recent 12-month period for which data was
available to petitioners.
Petitioners calculated FMV based on CV. Prior to resorting to CV,
petitioners demonstrated that the home market for Tubos Reunidos was
not viable. Specifically, petitioners compared estimated Spanish
consumption in 1993 and Spanish export statistics for January through
August 1993, and found that home market shipments as a percentage of
exports to third country markets was substantially less than five
percent. Petitioners also stated that information on Tubos Reunidos'
sales of OCTG products to third country markets was not reasonably
available despite their efforts to obtain such information.
Therefore, in the absence of a viable home market and comparable
third country sales, petitioners based FMV on CV. Because petitioners
could not obtain actual production costs for Tubos Reunidos, they used
U.S. production costs, adjusted to reflect production costs in Spain.
Petitioners calculated CV in accordance with a methodology
acceptable to the Department. Because petitioners do not have access to
the foreign producer's proprietary data, petitioners utilized their own
cost information and adjusted for all known differences between the
U.S. and Spanish markets with publicly available information. When
practicable, petitioners used public information specific to Tubos
Reunidos. Petitioners added an amount for the statutory minimum eight
percent profit and their own packing costs to the estimated COP to
derive the CV.
The range of dumping margins for OCTG from Spain based on a
comparison of USP to CV alleged by petitioners is 5.3 percent to 18.6
percent.
Initiation of Investigations
We have examined the petitions on OCTG from Argentina, Austria,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Spain and have found that the
petitions meet the requirements of section 732(b) of the Act and 19 CFR
353.12. Therefore, we are initiating antidumping duty investigations to
determine whether imports of OCTG from Argentina, Austria, Italy,
Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in
the United States at less than fair value.
Preliminary Determinations by the International Trade Commission
The International Trade Commission (ITC) will determine by August
15, 1994, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of OCTG
from Argentina, Austria, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Spain are
materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Negative ITC determinations will result in the investigations being
terminated; otherwise, the investigations will proceed according to
statutory and regulatory time limits.
This notice is published pursuant to section 732(c)(2) of the Act
and 19 CFR 353.13(b).
Dated: July 20, 1994.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 94-18170 Filed 7-25-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
