[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48783-48788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23322]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 1997 through July 31, 1998, which is the
third 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 these administrative reviews, 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. The
preliminary results are listed below in the section entitled
``Preliminary Results of Review.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Lyons or Steve Bezirganian,
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0374, or (202) 482-0162,
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).
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 11, 1998, the Department published
in the Federal Register (63 FR 42821) a notice indicating an
opportunity to request an administrative review of this order for the
period August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998. On August 31, 1998, both
SeAH and petitioners (Maverick Tube Corporation, Lone Star Steel
Company, and IPSCO Tubulars Inc.) requested an administrative review
for SeAH entries during that period. On September 29, 1998, 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, 1997 through July 31, 1998 (63 FR
51893).
[[Page 48784]]
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 February 17, 1999, the Department
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary
results in the review to August 13, 1999. See Notice of Extension of
Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Korea, 64 FR 7855. On July 20, 1999, the Department
published a notice of extension of the time limit for the preliminary
results in the review to August 31, 1999. See Notice of Extension of
Time Limit for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Korea, 64 FR 38890.
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
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 products 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.
Transactions Reviewed
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 for all U.S. sales. All of SeAH's U.S. sales are
classified as CEP sales (see ``United States Price'' section below).
The Department's questionnaire instructed the respondent to report CEP
sales made after importation if the dates of sale fell in the period of
review (see page C-1 of the Department's September 29, 1998
Questionnaire). Therefore, as it did in the 1996-1997 POR, the
Department again reviewed U.S. sales in the POR if those sales involved
subject merchandise that had entered the United States and been placed
in the physical inventory of SeAH's U.S. affiliates. The questionnaire
also instructed the respondent to report CEP sales made prior to
importation if the entry dates fell in the period of review.
Consequently, we have limited our U.S. database to these transactions.
For the few CEP sales made through PPA but shipped directly from Korea
to the unaffiliated U.S. customers, we reviewed U.S. entries in the
POR.
Comparison Market
The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by
comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison market sales to 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 United States 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 United States 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 only
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 two potential third country markets are
Myanmar and Japan. Sales to Myanmar, on both a value and a volume
basis, were several times greater than sales to Japan. See, e.g.,
Exhibit A-30 of SeAH's March 19, 1999, supplemental questionnaire
response. In the previous administrative review the Department found
the Myanmar sales to be representative, and 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. See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 47469, 47470
(September 8, 1998), unchanged at Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 13169
(March 17, 1999). Likewise, in this administrative review we found
Myanmar to be an appropriate comparison market. We utilized Myanmar
sales in our analysis of petitioners' allegation regarding sales below
cost (see ``Normal Value'' section below), and have used SeAH's sales
to that market as the basis for normal value.
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 period of review (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 29,
1998 antidumping questionnaire.
Normal Value Comparisons
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United
States were made at less than normal 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
[[Page 48785]]
compared these to individual U.S. transaction prices.
United States Price
Typical sales proceeded as follows: after importation of the
subject merchandise, PPA maintained the merchandise in inventory. PPA
sold OCTG to the Panther division of 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. Finally, State invoiced the unaffiliated
customers and received payment. For a few sales, involving back-to-back
sales by SeAH through PPA, SeAH produced subject merchandise to order
and shipped the merchandise to the U.S. customer, with PPA fulfilling a
number intermediary functions as discussed below.
In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP for
calculation of price to the United States because either the first
sales to unaffiliated customers in the United States were made after
importation of the subject merchandise or, in the remaining instances,
the U.S. affiliate, PPA, performed functions beyond what would be
considered ancillary. For back-to-back sales, respondent confirmed that
PPA performed a number of functions, including occasional negotiations
with unaffiliated customers, forwarding orders and order changes (at
times) from unaffiliated U.S. customers to SeAH for acceptance, acting
as the importer of record, provision of marine insurance, clearing
subject merchandise through U.S. customs, occasional handling of
freight from the U.S. point of entry, preparing and issuing invoices to
unaffiliated customers, receipt of payments from unaffiliated
customers, and providing customer service when necessary. Finally,
respondent reported that SeAH has no direct contact with unaffiliated
U.S. customers. As noted on page 2 of SeAH's supplemental questionnaire
response dated March 19, 1999, the respondent agreed to characterize
these ``back-to-back'' sales as CEP sales, in part because such
characterization was consistent with the Department's recent decision
involving respondents with similar sales processes (see Certain Cold-
Rolled and Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Korea:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 64 FR 12927,
12937-38 (March 16, 1999)).
The starting point for the calculation of CEP was the delivered
price to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We made
adjustments for early payment discounts and other discounts. 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,
warehousing expenses, other direct selling expenses (inspection
expenses), and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying
costs. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added
duty drawback to the starting price. 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 deducted 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. See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR
47469, 47471 (September 8, 1998), unchanged at Oil Country Tubular
Goods from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 64 FR 13169 (March 17, 1999). The Department uses CV as the
basis for NV only when there are no sales that are suitable for
comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, in making comparisons in
accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products
described in the ``Scope of Review'' section of this notice, above,
sold in the comparison market 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 pursuant to 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 21, 1998, 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, on
February 4, 1999, the Department initiated a COP investigation of SeAH
(see Analysis of Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of
Production Memorandum (February 4, 1999); a public version of this
report is on file in the Central Record Unit, Room B-099, Department of
Commerce). Using sales and COP information provided by the respondent,
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.
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 its own interpretation of the specification's weight
tolerance. Weight conversion factors are needed to convert
[[Page 48786]]
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. See Circular Welded
Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea; Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 32833, 32836-37 (June 16,
1998).
In the prior review, we found that the minus 1.75% weight tolerance
for carload lots applies for all OCTG produced to that specification,
not simply to OCTG with an outside diameter of less than 1.660 inches.
See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 47469, 47470 (September
8, 1998), unchanged in final. See Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods
From Korea, 64 FR 13169 (March 17, 1999). 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 Exhibit A-
14 of SeAH's November 2, 1998, 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 of 1.75% would apply to merchandise being transported by
ship, which is the case for SeAH's Myanmar sales and for its sales to
PPA. Rather, the 3.5% weight tolerance indicated by the specification
would apply. Therefore, as we have determined in the prior review,
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 to calculate costs
(except for products for which costs were maintained on a theoretical
weight basis, which require no weight conversion), consistent with the
last administrative review. See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR
47469, 47472 (September 8, 1998), unchanged at Oil Country Tubular
Goods from Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 64 FR 13169 (March 17, 1999).
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 to 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
usable 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.
C. Price-to-Price Comparison
Where appropriate, for comparison to CEP, we made adjustments to NV
by deducting Korean inland freight, brokerage and handling, and
packing, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act and 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'') of 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 level of trade 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 level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level-of-trade 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).
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 which are destined
for Myanmar and the functions performed by SeAH with respect to its
[[Page 48787]]
sales made 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 Myanmar sales and PPA for U.S. sales) with respect
to the sales process. Additionally, SeAH did not claim a LOT adjustment
or a CEP offset in this POR. Consequently, we have preliminarily
determined that the sales in both markets are at the same LOT.
Therefore, neither a CEP offset nor a LOT adjustment is warranted.
Currency Conversion
Our preliminary analysis of Federal Reserve dollar-won exchange
rate data shows that the won declined rapidly at the end of 1997,
losing over 40% of its value between the beginning of November and the
end of December. The decline was, in both speed and magnitude, many
times more severe than any change in the dollar-won exchange rate
during the previous eight years.
Had the won rebounded quickly enough to recover all or almost all
of the initial loss, the Department might have been inclined to view
the won's decline at the end of 1997 as nothing more than a sudden, but
only momentary, drop, despite the magnitude of that drop. As it was,
however, there was no significant rebound. Therefore, we have
preliminarily determined that the decline in the won at the end of 1997
was so precipitous and large that the dollar-won exchange rate cannot
reasonably be viewed as having simply fluctuated during this time,
i.e., as having experienced only a momentary drop in value. Therefore,
in making this preliminary determination, the Department used daily
rates exclusively for currency conversion purposes for comparisons to
U.S. sales occurring between November 1 and December 31, 1997. For
sales occurring after December 31, but before March 1, 1998, the
Department continued to rely on the standard exchange rate model, but
used as the benchmark rate a (stationary) average of the daily rates
over this period. In this manner, we used an ``up-to-date'' (post-
precipitous drop) benchmark, but at the same time avoided undue day-to-
day fluctuations in the exchange rates used. See: Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene-
Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 14865, 14868 (March
29, 1999) and Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Wire Rope from Korea, 63
FR 67662, 67665 (December 8, 1998), unchanged at Steel Wire Rope from
Korea; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review 64 FR 17995
(April 13, 1999).
Preliminary Results of Reviews
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 Time period (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SeAH 09/01/97-08/31/98 15.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 deadline for submission of
rebuttal briefs, that is, 37 days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, including 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 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 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
[[Page 48788]]
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.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 99-23322 Filed 9-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
