[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24916-24917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10529]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-588-835]


Oil Country Tubular Goods From Japan; Amended Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending our final results of the 1997-98 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country 
tubular goods (OCTG) from Japan, published on March 22, 2000 (65 FR 
15305), to reflect the correction of ministerial errors made in the 
calculations of our final results. We are publishing this amendment to 
the final results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e). The final 
weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below 
in the section entitled ``Amended Final Results of Review.'' The period 
of review is August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Gilgunn or Mark Hoadley, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0648 and (202) 
482-0666, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective 
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act 
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise 
indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR 
Part 351 (1999).

Background

    On September 7, 1999, the Department published the preliminary 
results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
OCTGs from Japan (64 FR 48589). We published the final results of 
review on March 22, 2000 (65 FR 15305).
    On March 14, 2000, we received allegations from respondent, 
Sumitomo Metal Industries (SMI), that we had made ministerial errors in 
our calculations of the final results of review.

Scope of Review

    The merchandise covered by this order consists of OCTGs, 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, 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,

[[Page 24917]]

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.

Comments

1. Conversion of Data

    SMI alleges that the Department committed a ministerial error by 
calculating its margin on a per meter basis, as opposed to a per metric 
ton basis. SMI argues that calculations pertaining to OCTGs should be 
made on a per metric ton basis because (1) this has been the 
Department's policy in the past, (2) as a result of varying wall 
thickness, one meter of two different products will not weigh the same 
and will have different costs, values, and prices, (3) transactions in 
OCTGs are commonly conducted on a per metric ton basis, (4) the steel 
industry tracks OCTG costs, values, and prices on a per-weight basis, 
and (5) SMI's cost accounting system is based on weight.
    Department's Position: We agree with SMI. SMI reported data on a 
per foot, per meter, per kilogram, per metric ton, and per piece basis. 
For our preliminary results, we attempted to convert all data into per 
metric ton values. For our final results, we reconverted SMI's data as 
a result of a conversion error discovered in our preliminary 
calculations. In reconverting the data, however, we converted to per 
meter values, instead of per metric ton values.
    Calculating the margin on a per metric ton basis will be consistent 
with previous reviews and the investigation, with SMI's cost accounting 
system, and with the way in which the merchandise is sold. Therefore, 
we have recalculated SMI's margin on a per metric ton basis for these 
amended final results.

2. Conversion of Variable Cost of Manufacturing Data

    SMI alleges that we used an incorrect conversion rate when we 
converted the variable cost of manufacturing of its U.S. product from a 
per metric ton amount to a per meter amount.
    Department's Position: Because we agree that SMI's reported values 
should not have been converted to per meter values, this allegation is 
moot.

Amended Final Results of Review

    Upon review of the submitted allegations, we determine that the 
following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period 
August 1, 1997 through July 31, 1998:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Margin
                    Manufacturer/exporter                      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sumitomo Metal Industries....................................       0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of this notice of final results of administrative review 
for all shipments of oil country tubular goods from Japan entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of 
publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 
deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate shown above; (2) 
for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-
value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the 
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all 
other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 44.2 percent. This 
rate is the ``All Others'' rate from the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication 
of the final results of the next administrative review.
    This notice also serves as a final 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 doubled antidumping duties.
    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information 
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written 
notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion 
to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply 
with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is 
subject to sanction.
    We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: April 18, 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-10529 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P