[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48589-48594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23212]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-588-835]
Oil Country Tubular Goods From Japan: Preliminary Results and
Recission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results and recission in part of the
antidumping duty administrative review: Oil Country Tubular Goods From
Japan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on Oil Country Tubular Goods From
Japan (OCTG). This review covers the period August 1, 1997 through July
31, 1998.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have not been made
below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to
liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Parties who submit comments are requested to submit with each comment a
statement of the issue and a brief summary of the comment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Gilgunn or Maureen Flannery,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0648 and (202) 482-3020,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1,
1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR
part 351 (April 1998).
Background
On June 28, 1995, the Department published in the Federal Register
(60 FR 33560) the antidumping duty order on OCTG from Japan. On August
31, 1998, U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation (the petitioner)
requested that the Department conduct a review of Sumitomo Metal
Industries, Ltd. (SMI). On August 31, 1998, Okura and Company (Okura)
requested that the Department conduct a review of its exports of OCTG.
The Department initiated this antidumping administrative review for SMI
on September 23, 1998 (63 FR 51893, September 29, 1998) and for Okura
on October 26, 1998 (63 FR 58009, October 29, 1998).
Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend
the deadline for completion of an administrative review if it
determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the
statutory time limit of 365 days. On March 10, 1999, the Department
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary
results of review to August 15, 1999. See Oil Country Tubular Goods
From Japan: Notice of Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 11837. On July 27, 1999, the
Department published a second notice of extension of the time limit for
the preliminary results of review to August 31, 1999. See Oil Country
Tubular Goods From Japan: Notice of Extension of Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 40554. The Department is
conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act.
Scope of Review
The products covered by this order are oil country tubular goods
(OCTG), 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
products subject to this order are currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item
numbers: 7304.21.30.00, 7304.21.60.30, 7304.21.60.45,
[[Page 48590]]
7304.21.60.60, 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30,
7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80,
7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40,
7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10,
7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50,
7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20,
7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60,
7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45,
7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30,
7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 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 HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs
purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is
dispositive.
Okura
Okura & Company (America) Inc. (Okura America) imported subject
merchandise from its affiliate, Okura & Co. Ltd. (Okura Japan). The
OCTG entered the United States under temporary import bond (TIB) for
further processing (threading and coupling) by Okura America. There
were no sales of subject merchandise in any form (i.e., as imported or
as further processed) to unaffiliated parties in the United States
during the period of review (POR). All of the subject merchandise Okura
America entered under TIB was re-exported to Okura & Company (Canada)
Ltd. (Okura Canada) for sale to Canadian customers. Upon re-export,
pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rules and
section 181.53(a)(1) (A)-(C) of U.S. Customs regulations, U.S. Customs
treated the merchandise as if it had entered the United States for
consumption and compelled Okura (America) to pay antidumping duty cash
deposits at the rate of 44.2 percent.
Okura maintains that ``because the merchandise at issue was
exported without sale to an unaffiliated U.S. customer, the statute,
and fairness, prohibit the imposition of antidumping duties on these
entries,'' and cites 19 U.S.C. 1677a (a) and (b) (section 772 (a) and
(b) of the Act); Torrington Company v. United States, 82 F.3d 1039,
1044-47 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia, Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 33588 (June
20, 1997). Okura asserts that it only requested this review in order to
confirm that ``(1) no antidumping duties should be assessed on Okura's
consumption entries during the POR because all the merchandise in
question was re-exported, and (2) that Okura is entitled to a refund of
the cash deposits that were collected on those entries.''
The petitioner asserts that the imposition of antidumping duties on
Okura's TIB entries is required pursuant to Article 303 of the NAFTA,
Section 203 of the NAFTA Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3333), and U.S.
Customs regulations implementing NAFTA duty deferral/drawback
provisions (19 CFR 181.53). The petitioner asserts that ``under Article
303(3) of the NAFTA, if a non-NAFTA origin good is imported into the
territory of a NAFTA Party pursuant to a TIB or other duty deferral
program, and is subsequently exported to the territory of another NAFTA
Party, the Party from whose territory the good is exported must treat
the entry as an entry for domestic consumption and assess customs
duties on such merchandise.'' The petitioner maintains that ``while
such duties may be waived or reduced to the extent permitted under
Article 303(1), Article 303(2) specifically prohibits NAFTA parties
from refunding, waiving or reducing certain specified duties, including
antidumping and countervailing duties, on such exported goods.''
Dumping is defined as the sale of merchandise in the United States
at less than its NV. Thus, when the Department finds dumping, section
731 of the Act directs the agency to impose upon imports of the subject
merchandise an antidumping duty in the amount by which the NV exceeds
the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP). Section 772 of
the Act defines EP and CEP as a price to an unaffiliated purchaser in
the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for export to the
United States.
Once an antidumping order is in place, section 751(a) of the Act
directs the Department to conduct an administrative review, upon
request, to determine the NV, EP and/or CEP and dumping margin for each
entry of the subject merchandise under review. Thus, the Department's
ability to conduct an administrative review of an antidumping duty
order depends on the existence of entries and sales to unaffiliated
U.S. purchasers or unaffiliated purchasers for export to the United
States.
Without consumption entries, there is nothing upon which the
Department may assess duties that could be determined during the course
of a review. Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof From France, et al., 62 FR 54043, 54049 (Oct. 17,
1997). Therefore, merchandise that does not enter the United States for
consumption is not subject to antidumping duties. Subject merchandise
imported under TIB is not entered for consumption in the United States.
Accordingly, the Department has determined that merchandise entered
under TIB, even when purchased by an unaffiliated party, is not subject
to antidumping duties. See Remand Determination: Titanium Metals Corp.
v. United States, 94-04-00236 (April 17, 1995)(Titanium Sponge Remand)
(``because TIB entries are not consumption entries, we determine that
TIB entries are not subject to antidumping duties and the estimated
duty deposit requirement of the antidumping law''). The Department's
decision was affirmed by the United States Court of International Trade
(CIT) in Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 901 F. Supp. 362 (CIT
1995).
Moreover, subject merchandise that is entered for consumption but
is not sold in any form (either in the form as entered or as further
manufactured) to an unaffiliated customer in the United States is not
subject to antidumping duties because there is no U.S. sale and,
therefore, no margin could be calculated. See Torrington Co. v. United
States, 82 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Therefore, when an affiliate of
the exporter enters subject merchandise for consumption, but re-exports
the merchandise (in the form as entered or as further manufactured),
i.e., the merchandise is never sold in any form to an unaffiliated U.S.
customer, the Department does not include those entries in its dumping
analysis. See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany; Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 31692, 31743
(July 11, 1991). The Department's practice in this context was affirmed
by the Federal Circuit in Torrington Co. v. United States, 82 F.3d 1039
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
In this review, we considered whether NAFTA rules require the
Department to deviate from the principles described above. Article
1901.3 of the NAFTA states that ``no provision of any other Chapter of
this Agreement shall be construed as imposing obligations on a Party
with respect to the Party's antidumping law or countervailing duty
law.'' Thus, the parties made clear that NAFTA did not require any
changes in
[[Page 48591]]
antidumping duty law or practice. Therefore, if it is possible to read
the NAFTA rules in a manner consistent with the law and practice
discussed above, the entries in question should not be subject to
antidumping duties.
Article 303 of NAFTA addresses duty drawback and duty deferral
programs, including TIB. Specifically, Article 303(3) provides that
merchandise entered under TIB in the United States and subsequently
reexported to another NAFTA party shall be considered to be entered for
consumption and shall be subject to all relevant customs duties. Thus,
the TIB status of such entries does not necessarily insulate these
entries from the assessment of antidumping duties. Paragraph 2 of
Article 303 further provides that ``no party may, on condition of
export, refund, waive or reduce an antidumping or countervailing duty
that is applied pursuant to a Party's domestic law and that is not
applied inconsistently with Chapter Nineteen.'' Nevertheless, Article
303.3(a) does not compel the assessment of antidumping or
countervailing duties that would not otherwise be applied under a
party's domestic law.
With respect to Okura, as there are no sales to unaffiliated
customers in the United States nor sales to unaffiliated customers for
exportation to the United States, antidumping duties would not be
applied under current law and practice. Therefore, liquidating these
entries without regard to antidumping duties would not constitute a
waiver, refund or reduction of antidumping duties under NAFTA. The
NAFTA rules do not change the requirement that there be a U.S. sale to
calculate a dumping margin. Since there is no U.S. sale, we are
rescinding this review with regard to Okura, and will order Customs to
liquidate the entries at issue without regard to antidumping duties.
SMI/Sumitomo Corporation (SC)
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information
provided by SMI (sales and difference in merchandise (DIFFMER)) from
July 9, 1999 through July 17, 1999, using standard verification
procedures, including on-site inspection of SMI's manufacturing
facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records.
We also verified information provided by SC (sales) from July 19, 1999
through July 21, 1999, using standard verification procedures including
examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification
results are outlined in public versions of the verification reports on
file with the Central Records Unit, in Room B-099 of the Herbert C.
Hoover Building.
Affiliation
SMI is a diversified manufacturer of high quality steel products,
including OCTG, and a supplier of construction, plant, and system
engineering services. SC is a major trading company with interests in
business sectors ranging from metals and motor vehicles to fertilizer
and fashion.
The petitioner contends that SMI and SC should be considered
``affiliated parties'' as defined by the Department's regulations. In
its May 20, 1999 submission, the petitioner specifically cites SC's and
SMI's joint ownership interests, corporate interrelationships, and
close customer/supplier relationship as ``overwhelming evidence'' of
the two parties' affiliation.
In its original response to our antidumping duty questionnaire, SMI
stated that ``none of the products under review were sold to
affiliates,'' a position that it has argued consistently throughout
this review. Although SMI has acknowledged substantive, long-standing
commercial and corporate links with SC, including but not limited to
those mentioned in the petitioner's May 20, 1999 submission, SMI
asserts that these links do not constitute ``affiliation'' as defined
by the statute and the Department's regulations.
Section 771(33) of the Act describes affiliated persons, in part,
as ``two or more persons directly or indirectly controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with, any person.'' Moreover, the statute
provides that ``a person shall be considered to control another person
if the person is legally or operationally in a position to exercise
restraint or direction over the other person.'' Id.
The legislative history makes clear that the statute does not
require majority ownership for a finding of control.1
Rather, the statutory definition of control encompasses both legal and
operational control. A minority ownership interest, examined within the
context of the totality of the evidence, is a factor that the
Department considers in determining whether one party is legally or
operationally in a position to control another. See Certain Cut-To-
Length Carbon Steel Plate From Brazil, 62 FR 18486, 18490 (April 15,
1997); see also 19 CFR 351.102(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Statement of Administrative Action states that: ``[t]he
traditional focus on control through stock ownership fails to
address adequately modern business arrangements, which often find
one firm `operationally in a position to exercise restraint or
direction' over another even in the absence of an equity
relationship.'' See SAA at 838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, evidence of actual control is not required for a
finding of affiliation within the meaning of section 771(33) of the
Act; it is the ability to control that is at issue. See also Proposed
Rules, 61 FR 7308, 7310 (February 27, 1996). The Department has stated
that merely identifying ``the presence of one or more of the other
indicia of control (as per Section 771(33) of the Act) does not end our
{the Department's} task.'' 2 The Department is compelled to
examine all indicia, in light of business and economic reality, to
determine whether they are evidence of control. In determining whether
control over another person exists, within the meaning of section
771(33) of the Act, the Department will consider the following factors,
among others: corporate or family groupings; franchise or joint venture
agreements; debt financing; and close supplier relationships. However,
the Department will not find affiliation on the basis of these factors
unless the relationship has the potential to impact decisions
concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise
or foreign like product. See 19 CFR 351.102(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 61 FR 7310 (February 27, 1996) Antidumping Duties;
Countervailing Duties. Notice of proposed rulemaking and Request for
Public Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMI and SC have significant equity interests in multiple joint
ventures. We considered whether these joint ownership interests
establish that SMI and SC control these third parties, as contemplated
by section 771(33)(F) of the Act. In doing so, we took note of the
decision of the CIT in Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. v. United
States, 15 F. Supp. 2d 807 (1998) (Mitsubishi). In Mitsubishi, the CIT
held that ``the statutory definition of affiliated parties at 19 U.S.C.
1677(33)(F) does not require two companies exercise control over each
other. The statute requires only that two or more persons control a
third person.''
Because of the nature of SMI's and SC's holdings in these joint
ventures, the Department has found SMI and SC are ``legally or
operationally in a position to exercise restraint'' over those third
parties. Thus, we conclude that SMI and SC have a joint control
relationship within the meaning of section 771(33)(F) of the Act.
Because most of the information on which we relied to perform our
analysis is proprietary, it cannot be discussed in this notice.
However, a memorandum
[[Page 48592]]
detailing our analysis has been prepared. (See the proprietary version
of the Memo from Barbara E. Tillman to Robert S. LaRussa regarding
``Affiliation of Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. and Sumitomo
Corporation,'' dated August 31, 1999 (Decision Memo).
While SMI and SC control these joint ventures, we recognize the
regulatory guidance indicating that a control relationship will not
establish affiliation for the purposes of our antidumping duty analysis
unless that relationship ``has the potential to impact decisions
concerning the production, pricing, or cost of the subject merchandise
or foreign like product.'' See 19 CFR 351.102(b). In reaching a
determination in this regard, we considered the totality of the record
evidence relevant to the relationship between SMI and SC. As discussed
below, numerous other factors reflect a relationship between these two
parties such that there is potential to impact the transactions between
SMI and SC involving the subject merchandise.
In addition to the joint ventures which we examined in finding a
control relationship under section 771(33)(F) of the Act, SMI and SC
are jointly invested in other companies. SMI's and SC's history of
extensive joint investments in numerous companies reflects a
significant commonality of interests between SMI and SC. This
commonality of interests between SMI and SC gives rise to a potential
to impact decisions concerning the pricing of OCTG sold by SMI to SC.
See Decision Memo.
The potential to impact pricing decisions in transactions between
SMI and SC is further reflected in SMI's and SC's long standing
customer and supplier relationship. SMI started dealing with SC with
regard to OCTG around 1952 and has maintained the business relationship
since that time. On a worldwide basis, SMI sells a significant portion
of its OCTG to SC. Likewise, SC derives a significant percentage of its
OCTG purchases from SMI. See Decision Memo.
Finally, we viewed SMI's and SC's relationship in the context of
the Sumitomo Group (SG) as a whole. SG holds itself out as a corporate
group which consists of twenty ``core'' companies that operate in
thirteen different business sectors. SMI and SC are core members of the
group. The 20 core companies have a variety of close corporate and
commercial links. SMI's and SC's membership in the SG is further
evidence that SMI's and SC's relationship has the potential to impact
decisions concerning the transactions between SMI and SC involving the
subject merchandise. See Decision Memo.
In sum, SMI and SC, through their substantial joint interests in
several joint ventures, have the potential to control or restrain those
joint ventures within the meaning of paragraph (F) of section 771(33).
In addition, SMI's and SC's significant commonality of interests,
demonstrated by multiple joint investments, a long-standing customer/
supplier relationship, and their membership in the SG, establishes that
the relationship has the potential to impact pricing in transactions
involving the subject merchandise. Therefore, we determine that SMI and
SC are affiliated parties under paragraph (F) of section 771 (33) of
the Act.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondents that are covered by the
description in the ``Scope of Review'' section above and sold in the
home market during the POR to be foreign like products for purposes of
determining appropriate product comparisons for merchandise sold to the
United States. 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
most similar home market like product on the basis of the
characteristics listed in Appendix III of the Department's October 16,
1998 antidumping questionnaire.
Comparisons to Normal Value
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United
States were made at less than NV, we compared the CEP to NV, as
described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections
of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we
calculated monthly weighted-average home market prices for NV and
compared these to individual U.S. transaction prices.
United States Price
For sales in the United States, the Department uses EP when the
subject merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the
United States by the producer or exporter outside the United States
prior to importation, and CEP is not otherwise warranted by facts on
the record. Because the Department has found SMI and SC to be
affiliated, and the subject merchandise was not sold to an unaffiliated
purchaser until after its importation into the United States, the
starting price for CEP is the price from SC's U.S. affiliate to
unaffiliated customers in the United States.
The Department calculated CEP (there were no EP sales) for SMI
based on packed, prepaid or delivered prices to SC's customer in the
United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we reduced
CEP by movement expenses (international freight, marine insurance,
inland freight, and duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the
Act, we deducted direct selling expenses (credit, advertising, and
warranty expenses) and indirect selling expenses, including inventory
carrying costs. Finally, we made an adjustment for an amount of profit
allocated to selling expenses incurred in the United States, in
accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.
It is the Department's current practice normally to use the invoice
date as the date of sale; we may, however, use a date other than the
invoice date if we are satisfied that a different date better reflects
the date on which the exporter or producer establishes the material
terms of sale. See 19 CFR Sec. 351.401(i); Preamble to the Antidumping
Duty Regs., 62 FR at 27411. Our questionnaire instructed SMI/SC to
report the date of invoice as the date of sale; it also stated,
however, that, for CEP sales, ``(t)he date of sale cannot occur after
the date of shipment.'' In this review, SC's date of shipment always
preceded the date of invoice, and therefore we cannot use the date of
invoice. Instead, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i), the home market
sales dates are the dates on which the goods were shipped to the
unaffiliated customer. In addition, the U.S. sales dates are the dates
on which SC shipped the goods from the U.S. port of unloading to its
unaffiliated customer.
Normal Value
The Department determines the viability of the home market as the
comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of home market
and U.S. sales. We found that SMI's quantity of sales in its home
market exceeded five percent of its sales to the United States. We
therefore have determined that SMI's home market sales are viable for
purposes of comparison with sales of the subject merchandise to the
United States, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Therefore,
in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on
the price, net of discounts, at which the foreign like product was
first sold for consumption in the home market, in the usual commercial
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and, to the extent
practicable, at the same level of
[[Page 48593]]
trade as the CEP sales. See the ``Level of Trade section'' below. We
determined what home market merchandise was most similar to the
merchandise sold in the United States on the basis of product
characteristics set forth in sections B and C of the Department's
questionnaire.
For comparisons to CEP, we made COS adjustments by deducting home
market direct selling expenses (credit expenses, advertising, and
royalties) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also
made adjustments, where applicable, for movement expenses, in
accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also
made adjustments for differences in the costs of manufacture for
subject merchandise and matching foreign like products, attributable to
their differing physical characteristics, pursuant to section
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act, and for home market indirect selling
expenses, up to the amount of U.S. indirect selling expenses, in
accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the
same LOT as U.S. sales. The NV LOT is the level of the starting-price
sale in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value, the
level of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and
administrative expenses (SG&A) and profit. For export price, the U.S.
LOT is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from
exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale
from the exporter to the importer. To determine whether NV sales are at
a different LOT than EP or CEP, we examine stages in the marketing
process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between
the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market
sales are at a different LOT, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the LOT of the export transaction, we make an LOT
adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP
sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP
level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in
the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV
under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP offset provision). See
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731
(November 19, 1997).
For merchandise sold in the home market during this POR, SMI
claimed one distribution channel and one LOT and SC claimed two
distribution channels and one LOT. Regardless of the distribution
channel, the selling functions performed by SMI, or by SMI and SC
combined where the sale was made through SC, were substantially the
same. Therefore, we concluded all sales in the home market were made at
one LOT.
We then compared the selling functions in the U.S. and home
markets. At the level of CEP sales to the United States, i.e., after
eliminating from consideration the selling functions associated with
deductions made under section 772 of the Act, we found that the CEP
sales were made at a different and less advanced level of trade than
home market sales.
Because there are no sales in the home market made at the same LOT
as sales in the United States, we were not able to determine whether
the difference in LOT affects price comparability. Therefore, we made a
CEP offset adjustment. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(f)(2), we
deducted indirect selling expenses from NV to the extent of U.S.
indirect selling expenses. For a further discussion of the Department's
LOT analysis with respect to SC, see Memorandum to the File: Analysis
Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Review for SMI, August 31,
1999.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with
section 773A of the Act based on the exchange rates in effect on the
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period August 1, 1997 through July 31,
1998 to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMI........................................................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose to the parties to the proceeding
calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of
review within five days after the date of publication of these
preliminary results of review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of
publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 2 days after the
date of filing of rebuttal briefs or the first business day thereafter.
Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30
days after publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in
case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date of
filing of case briefs. The Department will publish the final results of
this administrative review, including its analysis of issues raised in
the case and rebuttal briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of
publication of this notice.
Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall
determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR
351.212(b), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment
rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties
calculated for the examined sales to the total customs value of the
sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed
uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the
POR.
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, as
provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for
each reviewed company will be that established in the final results of
review (except that no deposit will be required for firms with de
minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2) for
exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the less than fair
value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, 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 previous review, or the 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; (4) the
cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will
continue to be the ``all others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation, which was 44.20 percent. These 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 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant
[[Page 48594]]
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 issued in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and
19 U.S.C 1677f(i)(1)).
Dated: August 31, 1999.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23212 Filed 9-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
