[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35188-35193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17160]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-489-501]
Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube From Turkey
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain welded
carbon steel pipe and tube from Turkey in response to a request by the
petitioners.\1\ This review covers shipments of this merchandise to the
United States during the period May 1, 1994, through April 30, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Allied Tube & Conduit and Wheatland Tube Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results, we will instruct U.S. Customs to assess antidumping
duties equal to the differences between the United States price and NV.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary
results. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each
argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the
argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Stagner or Magd Zalok, Office
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-1673 or (202) 482-4162, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
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 (the Act) by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the
current regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
On May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24831), the Department published in the
Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative
Review'' of the antidumping duty order on Certain Welded Carbon Steel
Pipe and Tube from Turkey covering the period May 1, 1994, through
April 30, 1995 (58 FR 53709). In accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a)(1),
in May 1995, the petitioners requested a review of the following
producers and exporters of certain welded carbon steel pipe and tube:
(1) The Borusan Group \2\ (Borusan); (2) Mannesmann-Sumerbank Boru
Industrisi T.A.S. (Mannesmann); (3) Yucelboru Ihracat, Ithalat ve
Pazarlama A.S./Cayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Yucelboru); and
(4) Erbosan
[[Page 35189]]
Erviyas Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. (Erbosan). On June 15, 1995, the
Department published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review (60 FR 31447). The Department is conducting this
administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Including Borusan Birlesik Boru Fabrikalar A.S., Kartal Boru
Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Borusan Ihracat Ithalat ve Dagitim A.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30 and November 13, 1995, respectively, Yucelboru and
Mannesmann stated that they did not have any shipments during the
period of review (POR). In November 1995, Borusan and Erbosan submitted
responses to the Department's September 12, 1995, questionnaire. We
issued supplemental questionnaires to Borusan and Erbosan in May 1996.
Responses to these questionnaires were received in June 1996.
On January 16, 1996, the petitioners alleged that Borusan made
sales at below its cost of production (COP). On May 3, 1996, we
initiated an investigation of sales below cost. In June 1996, Borusan
submitted a response to the Department's May 23, 1996, cost
questionnaire.
Scope of the Review
The products covered by this review include circular welded non-
alloy steel pipes and tubes, 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, bevelled end, 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 conditioner 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 application. All carbon steel pipes and tubes within the physical
description outlined above are included in the scope of this review,
except for 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.
Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the
following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)
subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 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.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and
customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this
proceeding is dispositive.
Facts Available
In November 1995, we received a questionnaire response from
Erbosan. In addition, Erbosan responded to a supplemental questionnaire
in June 1996. In its responses, Erbosan did not provide: (1) The data
necessary for the Department to quantify the cost attributable to
physical differences in its U.S. and home market merchandise; (2) U.S.
and home market packing expenses; and (3) duty drawback amounts.
Section 776(a)(1) states that if necessary information is not
available on the record, the Department ``shall, subject to section
782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable
determination under this title.'' Section 782(e) provides that the
Department shall not decline to consider information that is submitted
by an interested party and is necessary to the determination but does
not meet all the applicable requirements established by the Department
if: (1) The information is submitted by the deadline established for
its submission; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the
information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested
party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability in
providing the information and meeting the requirements established by
the Department with respect to the information; and (5) the information
can be used without undue difficulties. Accordingly, in using the facts
available, the Department may disregard information submitted by a
respondent if any of the five criteria has not been met.
Due to the above-referenced omissions, we have determined that
Erbosan's response is so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable
basis for calculating dumping margins for these preliminary results
(section 782(e)(3) of the Act). Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)
of the Act, we are using facts available to calculate a margin for
Erbosan.
The Department must then determine whether an adverse inference is
warranted. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, where the
Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for
information from (the Department) * * * (the Department) may use an
inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in selecting
from among the facts otherwise available.''
Despite there being insufficient information to calculate a
preliminary margin, we believe that Erbosan has cooperated to the best
of its ability in supplying the requested information in this review.
Therefore, we are not using an adverse inference in selecting from
among the facts otherwise available (see section 776(b) of the Act).
Erbosan is a new respondent that has not been investigated before.
Therefore, its past entries have been subject to the ``All Others''
rate from the original investigation. We have determined that continued
use of the rate is warranted as a cooperative facts available rate for
purposes of these preliminary results. Accordingly, we have assigned to
Erbosan a margin of 14.74 percent, the ``All Others'' rate from the
original investigation.
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to
the extent practicable, corroborate secondary information from
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA), provides that ``corroborate'' means simply
that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information
to be used has probative value (see H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d
Sess. 870 (1996).
To corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the
extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the
information to be used. However, unlike for other types of information,
such as input costs or selling expenses, there are no independent
sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative
review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated
dumping margin from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not
necessary to question the reliability of the margin for that time
period. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, however,
the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal as
to whether there are circumstances that would render a margin not
relevant. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not
appropriate as facts available, the Department will disregard the
margin and determine an appropriate margin (see, e.g., Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review (61 FR 6812, 6814, February 22, 1996)) (where the Department
[[Page 35190]]
disregarded the highest margin as adverse best information available
because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic
business expense resulting in an unusually high margin). In this case
there are no circumstances present to indicate that the selected margin
is not appropriate to use as facts available.
Although we are using facts available for the preliminary results,
we intend to provide Erbosan an opportunity to submit the missing
information referenced above as part of a response to another
supplemental questionnaire. If Erbosan's reported information is
accurate, complete and verified, we will use such information in the
final results.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated for
Borusan transaction-specific Export Prices (EPs) for comparison to
either weighted-average NVs or constructed values. The EPs and NVs were
calculated and compared by product characteristics and levels of trade.
For price to price comparisons, we compared identical merchandise,
where possible. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in
the home market to compare to U.S. sales, we made similar comparisons
based on the characteristics listed in the Department's antidumping
questionnaire. We excluded certain products in the home market from our
analysis because there were either missing values or because the
merchandise was not part of the foreign like product.
Level of Trade
As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act and in the SAA
accompanying the URAA, at 829-831, to the extent practicable, the
Department will calculate normal value based on sales at the same level
of trade as the U.S. sales. When the Department is unable to find sales
in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the U.S.
sale(s), the Department may compare sales in the U.S. and foreign
markets at different levels of trade (see also, Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta from Italy (61 FR 30326,
June 14, 1996) (Pasta from Italy)).
In accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, if sales at
different levels of trade are compared, the Department will adjust the
normal value to account for the difference in level of trade if two
conditions are met. First, there must be differences between the actual
selling functions performed by the seller at the level of trade of the
U.S. sale and the level of trade of the normal value sale. Second, the
differences must affect price comparability as evidenced by a pattern
of consistent price differences between sales at the different levels
of trade in the market in which normal value is determined.
In implementing these principles in this case, the Department's
first task was to obtain information about the selling activities of
the producers/exporters. Information relevant to level of trade
comparisons and adjustments was requested of Borusan in our May 1996
supplemental questionnaire. We asked Borusan to establish any claimed
levels of trade based on the selling functions provided to each
proposed customer group, and to document and explain any claims for a
level of trade adjustment.
Our review of Borusan's submission shows that it has identified
levels of trade based on its selling activities by customer categories
and channels of distribution. In order to confirm whether separate
levels of trade actually existed within or between the U.S. and home
markets, we reviewed the selling functions attributable to the levels
of trade claimed by Borusan. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the
Act, and the SAA at 827, in identifying levels of trade for directly
observed export price and normal value sales, we considered the selling
functions reflected in the starting price, before any adjustments. In
reporting selling functions, whenever sales within a level of trade
were made by or through an affiliated company or agent, Borusan
``collapsed'' the affiliated parties before considering the functions
performed.
The selling functions and activities examined for each reported
level of trade were: (1) Inventory maintenance; (2) technical services;
(3) warranty services; (4) customer advice and product information; (5)
agent coordination of production and delivery; (6) general vs.
speciality sales staff; (7) delivery arrangements; (8) sales from
warehouse vs. direct sales; and (9) direct advertising. We did not
consider trade discounts as a selling function (see Pasta from Italy).
In reviewing the selling functions reported by Borusan for each
claimed level of trade, we considered all types of selling functions,
both claimed and unclaimed, that had been performed. Where possible, we
further examined whether the selling function was performed on a
substantial portion of sales within the relevant level of trade. In
analyzing whether separate levels of trade exist in this review, we
found that no single selling function in the pipe and tube industry was
sufficient to warrant a separate level of trade (see, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Public Comments (61 FR 7307, 7348,
February 27, 1996)).
In determining whether separate levels of trade existed in or
between the U.S. and home markets, the Department considered the level
of trade claims of Borusan, but the ultimate decision was based on the
Department's analysis of the selling functions associated with the
levels of trade reported by Borusan.
For Borusan, we determined that there is one U.S. level of trade
and three home market levels of trade, one of which we determined to be
identical in aggregate selling functions to that found in the United
States. We compared sales at the sole level of trade in the U.S. market
to sales at the identical home market level of trade. If no match was
available at the same level of trade, we compared sales at the sole
level of trade in the U.S. market to sales at the next most similar
home market level of trade. We then examined whether a level of trade
adjustment was appropriate for Borusan when comparing sales at its U.S.
level of trade to sales at the two non-identical home market levels of
trade.
To determine whether a level of trade adjustment was necessary, we
examined, on a monthly basis, the prices of comparable product
categories, net of all adjustments, between sales at the one identical
home market level of trade and sales at each of the two non-identical
home market levels of trade. We found a consistent pattern of price
differences between sales at these levels of trade. Therefore, for non-
identical level of trade matches, we made a level of trade adjustment
based on the weighted-average difference between the prices of the
product at the identical home market level of trade and each of the
products at the two non-identical home market levels of trade in the
given month. If no match was found, we compared EP to constructed
value.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of pipe and tube to the United States
were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV, as
described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this
notice.
Turkey experienced an inflation rate of over 75 percent during the
POR, as measured by the wholesale price index published in
International Financial Statistics. Accordingly, to avoid the
distortions caused by the effects of this level of inflation on prices,
we limited our comparisons to sales in the same month and did not apply
the Department's 90/60 day rule.
[[Page 35191]]
Export Price
For Borusan, we calculated EP in accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and
Constructed Export Price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted
based on the facts of this investigation.
We based EP on prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United
States. We made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price),
where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign inland
insurance, international freight and charges. We recalculated credit
expenses due to errors in Borusan's credit methodology. Additionally,
we added countervailing duties and duty drawback. We disallowed
Borusan's claimed value-added tax drawback because no statutory
authority exists for such an adjustment.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV,
we compared Borusan's volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since Borusan's
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was
greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the
subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. We
calculated NV as noted in the ``Price to Price Comparisons'' and
``Price to CV Comparisons'' sections of this notice.
Cost of Production Analysis
Based on the petitioner's allegation, the Department found
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Borusan's sales in the
home market were made at prices below the cost of producing the
merchandise. As a result, the Department initiated an investigation to
determine whether Borusan made home market sales during the POR at
prices below its COP within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
A. Calculation of COP
We calculated the COP based on the sum of Borusan's cost of
materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts
for home market selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A)
and packing costs in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act. As
noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced
significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices,
we requested that Borusan submit monthly production costs incurred
during each month of the POR. For a small number of sales, Borusan did
not report production costs. These sales were not matched to any U.S.
sales. We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis. We
calculated a simple-average cost for each product after indexing the
reported monthly costs of manufacturing during the POR to an equivalent
currency level using the wholesale price index for Turkey. The simple-
average cost of manufacturing was then restated in the currency value
of each respective month and used to calculate monthly COP and CV for
each product. We relied on Borusan's submitted costs except in the
following specific instances where the reported costs were improperly
valued:
(1) Borusan reduced its reported coil costs by inventory holding
gains. Our current cost methodology for economies with significant
inflation requires valuing any materials used to produce the subject
merchandise at the average purchase price of those materials during the
month of shipment. We therefore adjusted coil costs by removing these
holding gains.
(2) Borusan reported interest expenses which reflect a deduction
for foreign exchange gains. We adjusted these interest expenses by
excluding the foreign exchange gains since Borusan did not describe the
nature of the transactions giving rise to the gains.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
We used Borusan's adjusted monthly COP amounts and the wholesale
price index from the government of Turkey's State Institute of
Statistics to compute an annual weighted average COP for the POR. We
compared the weighted-average 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 the home
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, rebates, and
direct selling expenses.
C. Results of COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a 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 a respondent's
sales of a given product were at prices less than the COP, we
disregarded the below-cost sales where such sales were found to be made
at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time (in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act). Where all sales of a specific product were at prices below
the COP, we disregarded all sales of that product, and calculated NV
based on CV, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act.
We found that, for certain pipe and tube products, more than 20
percent of Borusan's home market sales were sold at below the COP.
Further, we did not find that the prices for these sales provided for
the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore
excluded these sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-
cost sales as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section
773(b)(1). For those pipe and tube products for which there were no
above-cost sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared export
prices to CV.
D. Calculation of CV
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of Borusan's cost of materials, fabrication, SG&A and
U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales databases. In
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A), we based SG&A and profit on the
actual amounts incurred and realized by Borusan in connection with the
production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course
of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. We calculated CV
based on the methodology described in the calculation of COP above. For
selling expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling
expenses.
Price to Price Comparisons
For those comparison products for which there were sales at prices
above the COP, we based NV on home market prices. For Borusan, we
calculated NV based on FOB mill/warehouse or delivered prices to
unaffiliated customers, or prices to affiliated customers which were
determined to be at arm's length (see discussion below regarding these
sales). We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price
for inland freight, pre-sale warehouse expense, discounts, and rebates.
We recalculated credit expenses to correct for missing payment dates.
Additionally, we added late payment charges. In accordance with
section 773(a)(6) of the Act, we deducted home market packing costs and
added U.S. packing costs.
[[Page 35192]]
In addition, we adjusted for differences in the circumstances of
sale, in accordance with section 773 (a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These
circumstances included differences in imputed credit expenses. We also
made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in the
merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We
calculated simple average variable and total costs of manufacturing by
product after indexing the reported monthly costs using the wholesale
price index for Turkey. We then indexed the average variable and total
costs of manufacturing to restate them in the currency value of each
respective month. The adjusted monthly variable costs of manufacturing
for U.S. and home market products were then compared to arrive at the
difference in merchandise adjustment. For a single U.S. product, where
no costs were reported, we assigned the highest reported U.S. variable
cost of manufacture as facts available. Where the difference in
merchandise adjustment for any product comparison exceeded 20 percent,
we based normal value on CV.
To determine whether Borusan's affiliated sales were made at arm's
length, we compared the gross unit prices of sales to affiliated and
unaffiliated customers net of all movement charges, direct and indirect
selling expenses, and packing (see the Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products
from Argentina (58 FR 37062, 37077, July 9, 1993)). We included those
sales that passed the arm's length test in our analysis (see 19 CFR
353.45(a)).
Price to CV Comparisons
Where we compared CV to export prices, we deducted from CV the
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses and added the
weighted-average U.S. product-specific direct selling expenses.
Currency Conversion
The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track
or publish exchange rates for the Turkish lira. Therefore, we made
currency conversions based on the daily exchange rates from the Dow
Jones Service, as published in the Wall Street Journal.
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 a benchmark rate by 2.25 percent. The benchmark rate is defined as
the rolling average of the rates for the past 40 business days.
However, we believe that it is appropriate in this case to use
actual daily exchange rates for currency conversion purposes, rather
than the benchmark rate. As noted in Policy Bulletin 96-1: Currency
Conversions (61 FR 9434, March 8, 1996), the Department is continuing
to examine the appropriateness of the currency conversion policy in
situations where the foreign currency depreciates substantially against
the dollar over the POI. In those situations, it may be appropriate to
rely on daily exchange rates. When the rate of domestic price inflation
is significant, as it is in this case, it is important that we use as a
basis for NV home market prices that are as contemporaneous as possible
with the date of the U.S. sale. This is to minimize the extent to which
calculated dumping margins are overstated or understated due solely to
price inflation that occurred in the intervening time period between
the U.S. and home market sales. For this reason, we have used the daily
exchange rates for currency conversion purposes.
Further, section 773A(b) directs the Department to allow a 60 day
adjustment period when a currency has undergone a sustained movement.
Such an adjustment period is required only when the foreign currency is
appreciating against the U.S. dollar. No adjustment period is warranted
in this review, because the Turkish Lira generally remained constant or
depreciated against the dollar during the POR.
Verification
On June 7, 1996, the petitioners requested that the Department
conduct verification of all factual information submitted by the
respondents upon which the Department relies in its final results.
Although this request was untimely and therefore not in accordance with
19 CFR 351.307(v)(A), the petitioners stated that this request should
not be rejected due to the fact that: (1) No verification has been
conducted in a review of the order since the 1986-87 administrative
review; (2) a sales below cost of production investigation had only
recently been initiated; and (3) no response had been received on
petitioners' request for a verification of the 1993-94 administrative
review. The petitioners stated that the delay in the completion of the
1993-94 review had impeded their ability to timely assess the need for
verification in this review.
Although the petitioners' request was untimely, we believe that in
this case, good cause for verification exists pursuant to 19 CFR
353.36(a)(iii) since: (1) No verification has been conducted since the
1986-87 administrative review; (2) we expect that there will be
significant post-preliminary results submissions of information; and
(3) this review includes a company (Erbosan) that has never been
subject to a verification. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act and 19 CFR 353.36, we plan to verify the sales and cost response of
Borusan and the sales response of Erbosan (provided that Erbosan
responds in full to the next supplemental questionnaire) in this
administrative review.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that the
following margins exist for the period May 1, 1994, through April 30,
1995:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Review period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borusan................................... 5/1/94-4/30/95 2.97
Erbosan................................... 5/1/94-4/30/95 14.74
Mannesmann................................ 5/1/94-4/30/95 3 23.12
Yucelboru................................. 5/1/94-4/30/95 4 28.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ No shipments subject to the review. Rate is from the last relevant
segment of the proceeding in which the firm had shipments.
\4\ Ibid.
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within 5 days of
publication of this notice. Any interested party may request a hearing
within 10 days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested,
will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first
workday thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30
days of the date of publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after
the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of the
final results of this administrative review, which will include the
results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written comments.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between EP and NV may vary from the percentages stated
above. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue
appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service.
[[Page 35193]]
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 752(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates
for Borusan and Erbosan will be the rates established in the final
results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent
and, therefore, de minimis within the meaning of section 733(b)(3) of
the Act, the cash deposit will be zero; (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, a
prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (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 or any previous review conducted by the
Department, the cash deposit rate will be the ``All Others'' rate, as
set forth below.
On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), in
Floral Trade Council v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993), and
Federal-Mogul Corporation v. United States, 822 F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993),
decided that once an ``All Others'' rate is established for a company,
it can only be changed through an administrative review. The Department
has determined that in order to implement this decision, it is
appropriate to reinstate the original ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV
investigation (or that rate as amended for correction of clerical
errors or as a result of litigation) in proceedings governed by
antidumping duty orders. In proceedings governed by antidumping
findings, unless we are able to ascertain the ``All Others'' rate from
the original investigation, the Department has determined that it is
appropriate to adopt the ``New Shipper'' rate established in the first
final results of administrative review published by the Department (or
that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a result
of litigation) as the ``All Others'' rate for the purposes of
establishing cash deposits in all current and future administrative
reviews. Because this proceeding is governed by an antidumping duty
order, the ``All Others'' rate for the purposes of this review will be
14.74 percent, the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Date: June 27, 1996.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-17160 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
