Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices 36407

Furthermore, imports covered by this

review include OCTG with nonstandard size wall thickness greater than

the minimum identified for a given

outer diameter as published in the API

or proprietary specifications for OCTG,

with surface scabs or slivers, irregularly

cut ends, ID or OD weld flash, or open

seams; OCTG may be bent, flattened or

oval, and may lack certification because

the pipe has not been mechanically

tested or has failed those tests. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules

(HTS) item numbers 7304.20, 7305.20,

and 7306.20. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we conducted verifications of the

information provided by Atlas. We used

standard verification procedures,

including: On-site inspection of the

manufacturers’ facilities, examination of

relevant sales and financial records, and

selection of relevant source

documentation as exhibits. Our

verification findings are detailed in the

memoranda dated March 8, 2000, the

public versions of which are on file in

the Central Records Unit, Room B–099

of the Main Commerce building (B–

099).

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this new

shipper review are addressed in the

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(‘‘Decision Memorandum’’) from Holly

A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Important Administration, to

Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

dated June 1, 2000, which is hereby

adopted by this notice. A list of the

issues parties have raised and to which

we have responded, all of which are in

the Decision Memorandum, is attached

to this notice as an Appendix. Parties

will find a complete discussion of all

issues raised in this review and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public memorandum which is on file in

room B–099. In addition a complete

version of the Decision Memo can be

accessed directly on the Web at

www.ita.doc.gov/importladmin/

records/frn/, under the heading

‘‘Applicable Country.’’ The paper copy

and electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

of Review

The Department, at verification, found

certain errors in the reported values for

inland freight in the home market and

U.S. sales databases. The Department

adjusted for these errors in these final

results of new shipper review. See Sales

Verification Report, dated March 8,

2000; see also Final Calculation

Memorandum, dated June 1, 2000. No

other changes were made to our margin

calculation program.

Final Results of Review

We determine that the following

percentage weighted-average margins

exist for the period June 1, 1998,

through November 30, 1998:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Atlas Tube, Inc ......................... 0.88

The Department shall determine, and

Customs shall assess, antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we

have calculated an importer-specific

duty assessment rate. With respect to

both export price and constructed

export price sales, we divided total

dumping margins for the reviewed sales

by the total entered value of those

reviewed sales for each importer. We

will direct Customs to assess the

resulting percentage margins against the

entered Customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of that importer’s

entries under the order during the

review period.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon completion of the

final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of OCTG from

Canada entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date of the final results

of this new shipper review, as provided

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The

cash deposit rate for Atlas 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, in a prior review, or the

original 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 16.65

percent. This rate is the ‘‘All-Others’’

rate established in the less than fair

value investigation.

These deposit requirements shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of administrative review for

a subsequent review period.

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 double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only

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 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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(2) and 771(i) of the Act.

Dated: June 1, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in Decision Memo

Comments and Responses

1. Cost of Production and Constructed Value

A. Product Specific Costs

2. Date of Sale

A. Contract Date vs. Invoice Date

3. Home Market Sales and Export Price

A. Billing Adjustments

[FR Doc. 00–14501 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–506]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods

From Canada

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

36408 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices

SUMMARY: In response to a request from

the respondent, Atlas Tube, Inc.

(‘‘Atlas’’), the Department of Commerce

(the ‘‘Department’’) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on oil country

tubular goods (‘‘OCTG’’) from Canada.

This review covers one manufacturer/

exporter, Atlas, and the period

December 1, 1998 through May 31,

1999. The period of review specified by

the Department’s opportunity to request

administrative review was June 1, 1998

through May 31, 1999. However, due to

the fact that the Department is

conducting a concurrent new shipper

review of the same manufacturer/

exporter for the period June 1, 1998

through November 30, 1998, this

administrative review only covers the

remainder of the period, December 1,

1998 through May 31, 1999. See Notice

of Initiation of Administrative Review

64 FR 47167 (August 30, 1999).

We have preliminarily determined the

dumping margin for Atlas to be 4.41

percent during the period December 1,

1998 through May 31, 1999. Interested

parties are invited to comment on these

preliminary results. 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Manning or Nithya Nagarajan, AD/

CVD Enforcement Group II, Office IV,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–3936 or

(202) 482–5253 respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department’s regulations are to

the current regulations at 19 CFR part

351 (1999).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on OCTG from

Canada on June 16, 1986 (51 FR 21782)

and an amended order on August 19,

1986 (51 FR 29579). On June 9, 1999,

the Department published an

Opportunity to Request Review (64 FR

30,962). On June 30, 1999, Atlas Tube

Inc., requested the Department initiate

an administrative review pursuant to

section 751(a)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR

351.213(b)(2). We initiated this

administrative review on August 30,

1999, (64 FR 47167) for the period

December 1, 1998 through May 31,

1999.

The Department issued its

questionnaire on September 1, 1999,

and received Atlas’ response to Section

A on September 20, 1999, Sections B

and C on November 5, 1999, and

supplemental responses on January 31,

2000. After an analysis of Atlas’ Section

A, B, and C responses, and upon receipt

of an allegation of below-cost sales from

petitioners, Lone Star Steel Company

and Maverick Tube Corporation, the

Department initiated on January 6, 2000,

an investigation to determine whether

Atlas made sales below the cost of

production (‘‘COP’’). Respondent

submitted its Section D response on

January 31, 2000, and supplemental

Section D response on February 10,

2000.

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Act.

Concurrent with the instant

administrative review, the Department

is also conducting a new shipper review

of Atlas under section 751(a)(2)(B) of the

Act. Pursuant to respondent’s request,

due to the fact that the new shipper

review covers shipments through

November 30, 1999, the administrative

review of Atlas (which would normally

cover the period June 1, 1998 through

May 31, 1999) is limited to the

examination of shipments during the

period December 1, 1998 through May

31, 1999. See 19 CFR 351.214(j).

Scope of the Review

The products covered by this review

include shipments of OCTG from

Canada. This includes American

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’)

specification OCTG and all other pipe

with the following characteristics except

entries which the Department

determined through its end-use

certification procedure were not used in

OCTG applications: Length of at least 16

feet; outside diameter of standard sizes

published in the API or proprietary

specifications for OCTG with tolerances

of plus 1⁄8 inch for diameters less than

or equal to 85⁄8 inches and plus 1⁄4 inch

for diameters greater than 85⁄8 inches,

minimum wall thickness as identified

for a given outer diameter as published

in the API or proprietary specifications

for OCTG; a minimum of 40,000 PSI

yield strength and a minimum 60,000

PSI tensile strength; and if with seams,

must be electric resistance welded.

Furthermore, imports covered by this

review include OCTG with nonstandard size wall thickness greater than

the minimum identified for a given

outer diameter as published in the API

or proprietary specifications for OCTG,

with surface scabs or slivers, irregularly

cut ends, ID or OD weld flash, or open

seams; OCTG may be bent, flattened or

oval, and may lack certification because

the pipe has not been mechanically

tested or has failed those tests. This

merchandise is currently classifiable

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules

(HTS) item numbers 7304.20, 7305.20,

and 7306.20. The HTS item numbers are

provided for convenience and U.S.

Customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we conducted verifications of the

information provided by Atlas. We used

standard verification procedures

including; on-site inspection of the

manufacturers’ facilities, examination of

relevant sales and financial records, and

selection of relevant source

documentation as exhibits. Our

verification findings are detailed in the

memoranda dated March 8, 2000, the

public versions of which are on file in

the Central Records Unit, Room B099 of

the Main Commerce building (CRU—

Public File).

United States Price

Atlas reported all United States sales

of subject merchandise, as export price

(‘‘EP’’) transactions sold to unaffiliated

U.S. customers prior to importation.

We calculated EP, in accordance with

section 772(a) of the Act, because the

merchandise was sold in the exporting

country to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and constructed export

price (‘‘CEP’’) methodology was not

otherwise warranted, based on the facts

of record. We based EP on the delivered

price to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. We adjusted the starting

price by the amount Atlas reported for

billing adjustments and made

deductions from the starting price for

discounts. We also made deductions for

movement expenses in accordance with

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these

included foreign inland freight, U.S.

inland freight, and U.S. brokerage and

handling charges.

Normal Value

After testing: (1) Home market

viability and (2) whether home market

sales were at below-cost prices, we

calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) as

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices 36409

noted in the ‘‘Price-to-Price

Comparisons’’ section of this notice.

1. Home Market Viability

In order to determine whether there is

a sufficient volume of sales in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product is equal to or

greater than five percent of the aggregate

volume of U.S. sales), we compared

Atlas’ volume of home market sales of

the foreign like product to the volume

of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise,

in accordance with section 773(a)(1) of

the Act. Because Atlas’ aggregate

volume of home market sales of the

foreign like product was greater than

five percent of its aggregate volume of

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise,

we determined that the home market

was viable for Atlas.

2. Cost of Production Analysis

On November 24, 1999, petitioners

filed an allegation that Atlas made home

market sales at prices that were below

the COP. Our analysis of the allegation

indicated that there were reasonable

grounds to believe or suspect that Atlas

had sold OCTG in the home market at

prices less than the COP. As a result,

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we

initiated a COP investigation on January

6, 2000, with respect to Atlas to

determine whether sales were made at

prices below the COP.

We conducted the COP analysis

described below.

A. Calculation of COP

In accordance with section 773(b)(3)

of the Act, we calculated COP based on

the sum of Atlas’ cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus an amount for home market selling,

general and administrative expenses

(‘‘SG&A’’), including interest expenses,

and packing costs.

B. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

We compared the weighted-average

COP figures to home market sales of the

foreign like product as required under

section 773(b) of the Act, in order to

determine whether these sales had been

made at prices below COP. In

determining whether to disregard home

market sales made at prices less than the

COP, we examined whether: (1) Within

an extended period of time, such sales

were made in substantial quantities; and

(2) such sales were made at prices

which permitted the recovery of all

costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a product-specific basis, we

compared the COP to the home market

prices, less any applicable movement

charges and rebates.

C. Results of the COP Test

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C),

where less than 20 percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices less than the COP, we did

not disregard any below-cost sales of

that product because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of respondent’s sales of

a given product during the POR were at

prices less than the COP, we determined

such sales to be made in ‘‘substantial

quantities’’ within an extended period

of time in accordance with section

773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In the instant

case, we compared Atlas’ home market

prices to weighted-average COPs for the

POR, and determined that such sales

were below cost and were not made at

prices which would permit recovery of

all costs within a reasonable period of

time, in accordance with section

773(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Therefore, we

disregarded such below-cost sales.

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 comparison market at the

same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) as the EP or

CEP transaction. The NV LOT is that of

the starting-price sales in the

comparison market or, when NV is

based on constructed value (‘‘CV’’), that

of the sales from which we derive SG&A

expenses and profit. With respect to

U.S. price for EP transactions, the LOT

is also the level of the starting-price

sale, which is usually from the exporter

to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than the U.S. sales, we

examined 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 home market sales at the LOT of the

export transaction, we make a LOT

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of

the Act. 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).

Atlas reported one customer category

and one channel of distribution (i.e.,

sales to unaffiliated distributors) for its

home market sales. For its EP sales,

Atlas also reported one customer

category and one channel of distribution

(i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated

distributors). Atlas claimed in its

response that its EP sales were made at

the same LOT as home market sales to

unaffiliated distributors. For this reason,

Atlas has not asked for a LOT

adjustment to NV for comparison to its

EP sales.

In determining whether separate

LOTs actually existed in the home

market and U.S. market, we examined

whether Atlas’ sales involved different

marketing stages (or their equivalent)

based on the channel of distribution,

customer categories and selling

functions. Atlas reported that its selling

functions for home market sales are

arranging for freight, warehousing, and

warranty service; however, we noted

that Atlas did not report any warehouse

or warranty expenses for home market

sales during the POR. After reviewing

the record evidence, we agree with Atlas

that its home market sales comprise a

single LOT.

In analyzing Atlas’ selling activities

for its EP sales, we noted that the sales

generally involved the same selling

functions associated with the home

market LOT described above. Atlas

reported that these selling activities

included arranging for freight,

warehousing, and warranty services;

however, we noted that Atlas did not

report any warehouse or warranty

expenses for U.S. market sales during

the POR. Based upon the record

evidence, we have determined that there

is one LOT for all EP sales and that it

is the same LOT as in the home market.

Therefore, because we find the U.S.

sales and home market sales are at the

same LOT, we determine that a LOT

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) is

not warranted.

Price-to-Price Comparisons

We calculated NV based on delivered

prices to unaffiliated customers. The NV

price was reported on a Goods and

Services Tax-exclusive basis. We

adjusted the starting price by the

amount Atlas reported for billing

adjustments. We made deductions from

the starting price for rebates, inland

freight, and inland freight insurance. We

made adjustments for differences in

merchandise in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act. We made

further adjustments, under section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, for

differences in circumstances of sale for

imputed credit expenses. Finally, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs in

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A)

and (B) of the Act.

36410 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 111 / Thursday, June 8, 2000 / Notices

Currency Conversion

Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the

Act, we made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars 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 this review, we

preliminarily determine that a 4.41

percent dumping margin exists for Atlas

for the period December 1, 1998,

through May 31, 1999.

The Department will disclose

calculations performed within five days

of the date of publication of this notice

to the parties of this proceeding in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An

interested party may request a hearing

within thirty days of publication of

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first working day

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs and/or written comments no

later than 30 days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results

of review. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals

to written comments, limited to issues

raised in such briefs or comments, may

be filed no later than 37 days after the

date of publication. The Department

will issue the final results of this

administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such comments,

within 120 days of publication of these

preliminary results.

Upon completion of this

administrative review, the Department

shall determine, and the Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. There was

only one importer during the POR for

merchandise sold by Atlas. We have

calculated an importer-specific duty

assessment rate based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales to the

total entered value of examined sales.

Atlas reported entered value by

subtracting discounts, freight, and

brokerage and handling costs from the

its reported U.S. price. This rate will be

assessed uniformly on all entries made

during the POR. The Department will

issue appraisement instructions directly

to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of OCTG from Canada entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash

deposit rate for Atlas will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for

merchandise exported by manufacturers

or exporters not covered in this review

but covered in the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation or a

previous review, the cash deposit rate

will continue to be the companyspecific rate published for the most

recent period; (3) if the exporter is not

a firm covered in this 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; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will be 16.65

percent, the ‘‘all-others’’ rate established

in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of

administrative review for a subsequent

review period.

This notice also 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.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1).

Dated: June 1, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–14502 Filed 6–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

Export Trade Certificate of Review

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of an

Amended Export Trade Certificate of

Review, Application No.97–3A003.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

has issued an amended Export Trade

Certificate of Review to The Association

for the Administration of Rice Quotas,

Inc. (‘‘AARQ’’) on June 1, 2000. Notice

of issuance of the original Certificate

was published in the Federal Register

on January 28, 1998 (63 FR 4223).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Morton Schnabel, Director, Office of

Export Trading Company Affairs,

International Trade Administration,

(202) 482–5131. This is not a toll-free

number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of

the Export Trading Company Act of

1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001–21)

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to

issue Export Trade Certificates of

Review. The regulations implementing

Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325

(1998).

The Office of Export Trading

Company Affairs (‘‘OETCA’’) is issuing

this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b),

which requires the Department of

Commerce to publish a summary of a

Certificate in the Federal Register.

Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15

CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by

the Secretary’s determination may,

within 30 days of the date of this notice,

bring an action in any appropriate

district court of the United States to set

aside the determination on the ground

that the determination is erroneous.

Description of Amended Certificate

Export Trade Certificate of Review

No. 97–00003, was issued to The

Association for the Administration of

Rice Quotas, Inc. (‘‘AARQ’’) on January

21, 1998 (63 FR 4223, January 28, 1998)

and lastly amended on September 25,

1998 (63 FR 53013, October 2, 1998).

AARQ’s Export Trade Certificate of

Review has been amended to:

1. Add the following companies as

new ‘‘Members’’ of the Certificate

within the meaning of section 325.2(1)

of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)):

ADM Latin, Inc., Decatur, Illinois, and

ADM Rice, Inc., Tarrytown, New York

(subsidiaries of Archer Daniels Midland

Company); AFE (USA), Inc., Houston,

Texas; California Commodity Traders,

LLC, Sacramento, California; California

Pacific Rice Milling, Ltd., Arbuckle,

California; Family & Sons, Inc., Miami,

Florida; Far West Rice, Inc., Durham,

California; Glencore Ltd., Stamford,

Connecticut (a subsidiary of Glencore

International AG), for the activities of

Glencore Grain Division and Glencore

Ltd.’s subsidiary, LaGrain International

Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Incomar

Texas, Ltd. and its subsidiary, Gulf Rice

Arkansas, LLC, Houston, Texas;

International Grain Brokerage, LLC,

Yuba City, California; JFC International

Inc., San Francisco, California (a

subsidiary of Kikkoman Corp.); Kitoku

America, Inc., Davis, California (a

subsidiary of Kitoku Co., Ltd.);