[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47469-47474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24068]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-825]
Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from SeAH Steel Corporation
(``SeAH''), the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
oil country tubular goods from Korea. This review covers one
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States,
SeAH, and the period August 1, 1996 through July 31, 1997, which is the
second period of review (``POR'').
We have preliminarily determined that SeAH made sales below normal
value (``NV''). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final
results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference
between the constructed export price (``CEP'') and the NV.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Campau, Steve Bezirganian, or
Steven Presing, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0409, -0162, or -0194, 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 (62 FR 27379, May 19, 1997).
[[Page 47470]]
Background
On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 41058) the antidumping duty order on oil country
tubular goods from Korea. On August 4, 1997, the Department published
in the Federal Register (62 FR 41925) a notice indicating an
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the
period August 1, 1996, through July 31, 1997, and on August 29, 1997,
SeAH requested an administrative review for its entries during that
period. On September 25, 1997, in accordance with Section 751 of the
Act, we published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of this order for the period August 1, 1996
through July 31, 1997 (62 FR 50292).
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 January 30, 1998, the Department
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary
results in the review to August 31, 1998. See Oil Country Tubular Goods
from Korea; Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 4624.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section
751(a) of the Act.
Scope of Review
The merchandise covered by this order are oil country tubular goods
(``OCTG''), hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including
only oil well casing and tubing, 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 or
tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe.
The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item
numbers: 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. The HTSUS item numbers
are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive of the scope of this review.
Comparison Market
The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by
comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison market and U.S. sales.
An exporting country is not considered a viable comparison market if
the aggregate quantity of sales of subject merchandise within it
amounts to less than five percent of the quantity of sales of subject
merchandise into the U.S. during the POR. Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the
Act; 19 CFR 351.404. We found Korea was not a viable comparison market
because the aggregate quantity of SeAH's sales of subject merchandise
within Korea during the POR amounted to less than five percent of the
quantity of sales of subject merchandise to the U.S. during the POR.
According to Section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the price of
sales to a third country can be used as the basis for normal value if
such price is representative, if the aggregate quantity (or, where
appropriate, value) of sales to that country is at least 5 percent of
the quantity (or value) of total sales to the United States, and if the
Department does not determine that the particular market situation in
that country prevents proper comparison with the export price or
constructed export price. The volume and value of sales to Myanmar were
both found to exceed 5 percent of the volume and value of sales to the
United States. We also found the price of SeAH's Myanmar sales to be
representative. (see 1996-1997 Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: Analysis of
Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for SeAH
Steel Corporation, at 1-2, which is the January 7, 1998 memorandum from
Steve Bezirganian through Steven Presing to Roland MacDonald (``Cost
Allegation Analysis Memorandum''). Further, we found no reason to
determine that the market situation in Myanmar would somehow prevent
proper comparison between normal value and export price or constructed
export price. Id. We therefore found Myanmar to be the appropriate
comparison market per section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act.
The only comparison market customer was a Korean trading company
that resold the merchandise to Myanmar customers. SeAH has a joint
venture with that trading company, but it is not involved with the
production of subject merchandise. Accordingly, we do not consider SeAH
and the Korean trading company to be affiliated for purposes of sales
to Myanmar. Further, we have no other information on the record which
indicates that this company should be considered an affiliated party
pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act, we have preliminarily
determined not to treat it as such.
Product Comparisons
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
products produced by the respondent, covered by the description in the
Scope of the Review section, above, and sold in the comparison market
during the POR, to be foreign like products for purposes of determining
appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no
contemporaneous sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market
to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the most similar
foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in
Appendix V of the Department's September 16, 1997 antidumping
questionnaire.
Fair Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United
States were made at less than fair value, we compared the Constructed
Export Price (CEP) to the 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 prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transaction
prices.
Interested Party Comments
On August 17, 1998, petitioners submitted comments. On August 19,
1998, SeAH submitted comments. Because of the lateness of these
submissions, we are not able to fully consider them for these
preliminary results.
[[Page 47471]]
United States Price
SeAH produced OCTG in Korea and shipped it to the United States.
Pusan Pipe America, Inc. (``PPA''), an affiliate of SeAH, was the
importer of record. After importation, PPA maintained the merchandise
in inventory. PPA sold OCTG to the Panther division of State Pipe and
Supply Co. (``State''), a firm that is jointly owned by SeAH and PPA.
State, in turn, sold OCTG to unaffiliated U.S. customers, typically
after further manufacturing was performed by unaffiliated processors.
State invoiced the unaffiliated customers and received payment.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for
calculation of the price to the United States because the first sales
to unaffiliated customers in the United States were made after
importation of the subject merchandise. The starting point for the
calculation of CEP was the delivered price to unaffiliated customers in
the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we
made deductions for movement expenses, including foreign inland
freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage
and handling, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties. In
accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted credit
expenses, warranty expenses, early payment discounts and other
discounts, warehousing expenses, other direct selling expenses
(inspection expenses), indirect selling expenses, and inventory
carrying costs. For certain U.S. sales, a domestic court ruled SeAH
should be paid for certain disputed receivables due. However, such
payments have not yet been received by SeAH. Accordingly, these court-
ordered payments have not been taken into account in determining dates
of payment. Should SeAH receive those payments prior to the final, we
will take them into consideration. For our calculations, we set the
payment date (for these U.S. sales) equal to the date of SeAH's last
submission (August 19, 1998) and recalculated credit expense
accordingly.
In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(b) of the Act, we added duty
drawback to the starting price. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the
Act, we made an adjustment for CEP profit. In accordance with section
772(d)(2) of the Act, we deducted the cost of further manufacturing
where such deduction was appropriate. This deduction for further
manufacturing was based on the fees charged by the unaffiliated U.S.
processors; SeAH indicated that the reported further processors'
charges included processing and repacking, and that it did not include
separate G&A or interest expense information related to this further
processing because all of the expenses incurred by State and PPA,
including the minimal G&A and interest expense associated with their
dealings with further processors, were reported as selling expenses.
Finally, we made an adjustment for an amount of profit allocated to
these expenses, when incurred in connection with economic activity in
the United States, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
Normal Value
A. Model Match
In accordance with recent practice, we matched a given U.S. sale to
comparison market sales of the next most similar model if all
contemporaneous sales of the most comparable model were below cost and
discarded from our analysis. The Department uses CV as the basis for NV
only when there are no above-cost sales that are otherwise suitable for
comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, in making comparisons in
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products
sold in the comparison market as described in the ``Scope of Review''
section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of
trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to
U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the
comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign
like product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the
characteristics listed in Sections B and C of our antidumping
questionnaire. This methodology is in accordance with the ruling of the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in CEMEX vs. United States,
133 F.3d 897 (Fed Cir. 1998).
B. Cost of Production and Constructed Value
1. Cost of Production: On December 2, 1997, petitioners alleged
that SeAH made comparison market sales of OCTG at prices below the cost
of production (``COP'') during the POR. After analyzing petitioners''
allegation (see the aforementioned Cost Allegation Analysis Memo), the
Department determined that it had reasonable grounds to believe or
suspect that sales had been made at prices that were less than the COP.
Therefore, on January 8, 1998, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act,
the Department initiated a COP investigation of SeAH. We compared sales
of the foreign like product in the comparison market with the model-
specific COP figure for the POR. In accordance with section 773(b)(3)
of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of
materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like
product, plus selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses,
including all costs and expenses incidental to placing the foreign like
product in condition packed and ready for shipment. In our COP
analysis, we used comparison market sales and COP information provided
by the respondent in its questionnaire responses.
The API Specification 5CT, to which SeAH states it makes its OCTG,
requires that a carload lot (considered to be a minimum of 40,000
pounds, or 18.14 metric tons) meet a negative weight tolerance of 1.75%
(i.e., the actual weight of the carload lot can be no less than 100%
minus 1.75%, or 98.25%, of the theoretical weight of the carload, the
latter being the weight basis for SeAH's sales). The weight tolerance
for single lengths of pipe are plus 6.5% and minus 3.5% (i.e., the
actual weight of any given pipe must be between 96.5% and 106.5% of the
theoretical weight). SeAH has reported weight conversion factors that
indicate actual weight was less than 96.5% of theoretical weight,
outside of the API weight tolerance. Weight conversion factors are
needed to convert SeAH's production costs, which for most OCTG products
are maintained on an actual weight basis, to a theoretical weight basis
so that the cost and sales data are on a comparable weight basis.
Petitioners argue that these conversion factors cannot, by
definition, be greater than 1.75% because SeAH does not know at the
time of production whether or not the customers will eventually
purchase carload lots. Petitioners state that the Department should
therefore deny SeAH's conversion factors in their entirety.
SeAH argues that the minus 1.75% tolerance only applies to OCTG
which has an outside diameter of less than 1.660 inches and that it did
not produce or make sales of these products to Myanmar or the United
States. SeAH asserts that it, State, and their customers do not require
that carload lots of the merchandise be weighed, and that it, State,
and their customers do not interpret the API specifications to require
that the carload lots of the merchandise be weighed. SeAH indicates
that it performs a weight-tolerance test for plain-end pipe, to make
sure its weight meets the plus 6.5% and minus 3.5% tolerances, and
[[Page 47472]]
that it performs the same test again, after the further processing
(performed in Korea for Myanmar sales, and by the unaffiliated U.S.
further processors for U.S. sales), to assure that the finished goods
meet the same tolerances.
We find, based on the record, that the minus 1.75% weight tolerance
API specified for carload lots of 5CT applies for all OCTG produced to
that specification, not simply to OCTG with an outside diameter of less
than 1.660 inches. The specification states that ``[a]ll dimensions
shown herein without tolerances are related to the basis for design and
are not subject to measurement to determine acceptance or rejection of
the product,'' and that ``[e]xceptions are Grades C90, T95, and Q125,
which may be furnished in other sizes, weights, and wall thicknesses as
agreed between the purchaser and the manufacturer'' (see API
Specification 5CT at section 7.1, in SeAH's December 24, 1997
submission). The carload lot weight is a dimension (weight) with a
tolerance (minus 1.75%), and none of SeAH's Myanmar or U.S. sales were
of Grades C90, T95, or Q125.
Nevertheless, it does not appear that the API carload lot weight
tolerance would apply to merchandise being transported by ship, which
is the case for SeAH's Myanmar sales and for its U.S. sales to PPA.
These are the transactions that are relevant for cost purposes; the
further manufactured U.S. sales to unaffiliated U.S. customers need not
meet any particular specification, or even be categorized as OCTG. SeAH
stated that its production meets the minus 3.5% and plus 6.5%
tolerance, and there is no clear reason why the actual weight should be
less than 96.5% of the theoretical weight if all of SeAH's OCTG is
produced to the specification. Consequently, for our preliminary
results we have used a conversion factor based on this assumption
(except for products for which costs were maintained on a theoretical
weight basis, which require no weight conversion).
Hot-rolled steel coil is one of the main material inputs used to
manufacture OCTG. SeAH purchased the majority of its hot-rolled steel
coil inputs from Pohang Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (``POSCO''). While
SeAH and POSCO are involved in a joint venture that produced non-
subject merchandise, we have no other information on the record which
indicates that these two companies should be considered affiliated
parties pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. Therefore, we have
preliminarily determined that SeAH and POSCO are not affiliated.
After calculating COP, we tested whether comparison market sales of
the foreign like product were made at prices below COP and, if so,
whether the below-cost sales were made within an extended period of
time, in substantial quantities, and at prices that did not permit
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. Because each
individual price was compared against the POR average COP, any sales
that were below cost were also determined not to be at prices which
permitted cost recovery within a reasonable period of time. We compared
model-specific COPs to the reported comparison market prices, less any
applicable movement charges, discounts, and rebates.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less
than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model
because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities
within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a
respondent's sales of a given model during the POR were at prices less
than the weighted-average COPs for the POR, we disregarded the below-
cost sales because they were made within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2) (B) and
(C) of the Act, and were at prices which would not permit recovery of
all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
2. Constructed Value: In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the
Act, we used constructed value (``CV'') as the basis for NV when there
were no above-cost contemporaneous sales of such or similar merchandise
in the comparison market. We calculated CV in accordance with section
773(e) of the Act. We included SeAH's cost of materials and fabrication
(including packing), SG&A expenses, and profit. See section
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. We applied the same conversion factor
methodology as noted in the COP section above. In accordance with
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on
the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary
course of trade for consumption in the comparison market. For selling
expenses, we used the weighted-average comparison market selling
expenses.
C. Price-to-Price Comparison
Where appropriate, for comparison to CEP, we made adjustments to NV
by deducting Korean inland freight, brokerage, handling, and packing,
in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, and by
deducting direct selling expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with
section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments for
differences in costs attributable to differences in physical
characteristics of merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of
the Act.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (``LOT'') as the U.S. sales. The NV LOT is that
of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when NV is
based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and
profit. For both EP and CEP, the relevant transaction for the level of
trade analysis is the sale (or constructed sale) from the exporter to
the importer.
To determine whether comparison market 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 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 a LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 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, 61732 (November 17, 1997), and Granular
Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin From Italy; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 25826 (May 11, 1998).
SeAH asserted that its comparison market sales were at a different
LOT than its U.S. sales because the comparison market sales are at a
more advanced level of distribution than its sales to State, and
because SeAH performed and incurred all expenses for all significant
selling functions and support services for the comparison market sales,
but did not perform them for its CEP sales made through PPA and State.
SeAH requested a CEP offset to
[[Page 47473]]
reflect these differences (see, e.g., pages 19-21 of SeAH's November
12, 1997, Section B questionnaire response).
In its original questionnaire response, SeAH asserted that it
performs many functions with respect to third country sales that it
does not perform with respect to U.S. sales, such as: gathering
strategic and marketing information including industry developments,
potential new or refined applications, products and sales practices of
customers and competitors, and technical and engineering developments;
establishing pricing policies for OCTG sales based on market conditions
in the third-country market; establishing sales promotional and
marketing strategies, including advertising, promotional activities,
and technical service for third-country market sales; and maintaining a
skilled sales force that is knowledgeable about SeAH's OCTG products
and the OCTG market in the third country market. Therefore, SeAH claims
that it has distinguished different levels of trade for its Myanmar
sales versus its sales to the U.S. importer of record, PPA, by
highlighting ways in which SeAH is deeply involved with, and
knowledgeable about, the Myanmar market.
However, the record indicates that SeAH has greatly overstated the
extent and importance of its activities with respect to the Myanmar
market. For example, at page 14 of its April 3, 1998 supplemental
questionnaire response, SeAH indicated that it does not even know the
identity or location of the customers of the Korean trading company to
which it made its Myanmar sales. While SeAH clarified this point at
page 40 of its June 4, 1998 supplemental questionnaire response by
saying that several documents in the third country sales process
indicate the destination and identity of the ultimate Myanmar
customers, it also noted that it had no contact with those Myanmar
customers, nor did it have any knowledge of the prices that the
unaffiliated Korean trading company charged those Myanmar customers.
SeAH's knowledge of the OCTG market is based on ``customer contacts and
other contacts in the industry'' (see page 13 of the April 3, 1998
supplemental questionnaire response), and based on SeAH's own
statements, such contacts with respect to Myanmar are very limited.
The record does not indicate more than a minimal involvement by
SeAH in either the marketing process or the selling functions
associated with its Myanmar and U.S. sales. There does not appear to be
any substantive difference between the functions performed by SeAH with
respect to the sales to the Korean trading company destined for Myanmar
and the functions performed by SeAH with respect to its sales to PPA,
the affiliated U.S. importer of record. In both instances, SeAH made
sales to resellers that in turn sold to end-users, and the record does
not indicate any more than the most minimal interaction of SeAH with
those resellers (the unaffiliated Korean trading company for the
Myanmar sales, and PPA for the U.S. sales) with respect to the sales
process. Consequently, we have preliminarily determined that the sales
in both markets are at the same LOT. Therefore, a CEP offset is not
warranted.
Preliminary Results of Reviews
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-
average dumping margin for the period August 1, 1996 through July 31,
1997 to be as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH.................................... 9/1/96-8/31/97 0.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to
parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with
these preliminary results within five days after the publication of
this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit
written comments in response to these preliminary results. Case briefs
must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case
briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit
for filing case briefs. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding
are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the
issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal
briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR
351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the
date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a
public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal
briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if
requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of
rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results.
The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing, not later than
120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
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 have calculated exporter/importer-specific
assessment rates. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed
sales by the total entered value of those reviewed sales for each
importer. We will direct the U.S. Customs Service to assess the
resulting percentage margin against the entered customs values for the
subject merchandise on each of that importer's entries under the
relevant order during the review period.
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 a deposit of zero will be required for firms with
zero or de minimis margins, i.e., margins less than 0.5 percent); (2)
for exporters not covered in this review, but covered in the LTFV
investigation or 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 original 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
12.17 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 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.
These administrative reviews and notices are published in
accordance with 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C.
[[Page 47474]]
1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: August 31, 1998.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-24068 Filed 9-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
