Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices 39125

1The petitioners in this investigation are Koppel

Steel Corporation, Sharon Tube Company, U.S.

Steel Group, Lorain Tubular Co. LLC (formally USS

Kobe), Vision Metals, Inc. (Gulf States Tube

Division) and the United Steel Workers of America.

from the class or kind of merchandise

under review. This merchandise is

currently classifiable under the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) item numbers

5402.10.3020, 5402.10.3040,

5402.10.6000, 5503.10.1000,

5503.10.9000, 5601.30.0000, and

5603.00.9000. The HTSUS item

numbers are provided for convenience

and Customs purposes. The written

description of the scope remains

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this sunset

review are addressed in the ‘‘Issues and

Decision Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision

Memo’’) from Jeffrey A. May, Director,

Office of Policy, Import Administration,

to Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

dated June 19, 2000, which is hereby

adopted by this notice. The issues

discussed in the attached Decision

Memo include the likelihood of

continuation or recurrence of dumping

and the magnitude of the margin likely

to prevail were the order revoked.

Parties can find a complete discussion

of all issues raised in this review and

the corresponding recommendations in

this public memorandum which is on

file in the Central Records Unit, room

B–099, of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the

Decision Memo can be accessed directly

on the Web at www.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memo are identical in content.

Preliminary Results of Review

The Department preliminary

determines that revocation of the

antidumping duty order on a on aramid

fiber formed of polypara-phenylene

terephthalamide from the Netherlands

would be likely to lead to continuation

or recurrence of dumping. The

Department, therefore, will report to the

Commission the company-specific and

‘‘all other’’ rates from the original

investigation listed below.

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin

(percent)

Azko .......................................... 2.90

All others ................................... 66.92

Any interested party may request a

hearing within 30 days of publication of

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR

351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested,

will be held on August 16, 2000, in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(d).

Interested parties may submit case

briefs, no later than August 7, 2000, in

accordance with 19 CFR

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

August 14, 2000. The Department will

issue a notice of final results of this

sunset review, which will include the

results of its analysis of issues raised in

any such comments, no later than

October 26, 2000.

This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and

notice are in accordance with sections

751 (c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–15962 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–485–805]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Small

Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe

From Romania

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magd Zalok or Charles Riggle, Group II,

Office 5, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4162, (202) 482–0650, respectively.

THE APPLICABLE STATUTE AND

REGULATIONS: 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 of Commerce (the

Department) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351

(April 1999).

FINAL DETERMINATION: We determine that

certain small diameter carbon and alloy

seamless standard, line and pressure

pipe (small diameter seamless pipe)

from Romania is being sold, or is likely

to be sold, in the United States at less

than fair value (LTFV), as provided in

section 735 of the Act. The estimated

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in

the Suspension of Liquidation section of

this notice.

Case History

The preliminary determination in this

investigation was issued on January 26,

2000. See Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Certain Small Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Romania,

65 FR 5594 (February 4, 2000)

(Preliminary Determination). On

February 9, 2000, we received a letter

from the Romanian Ministry of

Commerce and Industry reiterating its

earlier request that the Department grant

the seamless pipe industry in Romania

market-oriented industry (MOI) status.

We conducted verifications of the

questionnaire responses of the

respondents Sota Communications

Company (Sota) and Metal Business

International S.R.L. (MBI), and their

respective suppliers S.C. Silcotub, S.A.

(Silcotub) and S.C. Petrotub, S.A.

(Petrotub) from February 14 through

February 29, 2000. On February 7 and

March 6, 2000, the respondents and the

petitioners 1 in this investigation

requested a hearing, respectively. A

hearing was held on April 18, 2000.

Scope of Investigation

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are seamless carbon

and alloy (other than stainless) steel

standard, line, and pressure pipes and

redraw hollows produced, or

equivalent, to the ASTM A–53, ASTM

A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334,

ASTM A–335, ASTM A–589, ASTM A–

795, and the American Petroleum

Institute (API) 5L specifications and

meeting certain physical parameters,

regardless of application. For a detailed

description of the scope of this

investigation, see the ‘‘Scope of

Investigation’’ section of the Issues and

Decision Memorandum for the Final

Determination in the Antidumping Duty

Investigation of Certain Small Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Romania

(Decision Memorandum), from Holly

Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Import Administration to

Troy H. Cribb, Acting Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

dated June 19, 2000, which is on file in

the Central Records Unit, room B–099 of

the main Commerce Building and

available on the Web at

www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/

records/frn/. The scope of the

39126 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices

investigation has been amended since

the preliminary determination.

Period of Investigation

The period of this investigation (POI)

comprises each exporter’s two most

recent fiscal quarters prior to the filing

of the petition (i.e., October 1, 1998

through March 31, 1999).

Non-Market Economy Country

The Department has treated Romania

as a non-market-economy (NME)

country in all past antidumping

proceedings (see, e.g., Tapered Roller

Bearings and Parts Thereof From

Romania: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

36390 (July 6, 1998)). A designation as

a NME remains in effect until it is

revoked by the Department (see section

771(18)(C) of the Act). The respondents

in this investigation have not requested

a revocation of Romania’s NME status

and no further information has been

provided that would lead to such a

revocation. Therefore, we have

continued to treat Romania as a NME in

this investigation.

When the Department is investigating

imports from a NME, section 773(c)(1)

of the Act directs us to base normal

value (NV) on the NME producer’s

factors of production, valued to the

extent possible in a comparable market

economy that is a significant producer

of comparable merchandise. The

sources of individual factor prices are

discussed under the Normal Value

section, below.

Market-Oriented Industry

As stated in our preliminary

determination, the two Romanian

producers (i.e., Silcotub and Petrotub)

and their respective trading companies

(i.e., Sota and MBI), as well as the

Romanian Ministry of Industry and

Commerce, requested that the

Department find the seamless pipe

industry in Romania to be a MOI.

The criteria for determining whether

a MOI exists are: (1) There must be

virtually no government involvement in

setting prices or amounts to be

produced; (2) the industry producing

the merchandise under review should

be characterized by private or collective

ownership; and (3) market determined

prices must be paid for all significant

inputs, whether material or nonmaterial, and for all but an insignificant

portion of all inputs accounting for the

total value of the merchandise. See

Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from the

People’s Republic of China; Final

Results of Administrative Review, 61 FR

58514, 58515–6 (November 15, 1996)

(Lug Nuts). In addition, in order to make

an affirmative determination that an

industry in a NME country is a MOI, the

Department requires information on

virtually the entire industry. A MOI

claim, and supporting evidence, must

cover producers that collectively

constitute the industry in question;

otherwise, the MOI claim is dismissed.

(See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tailmeat

from the People’s Republic of China,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

than Fair Value, 62 FR 41347, 41353

(August 1, 1997) (Crawfish).)

In our preliminary determination, we

found that the Romanian seamless pipe

industry does not meet the Department’s

criteria for an affirmative MOI finding

because the information placed on the

record shows that all of the known

seamless pipe producers were owned

primarily by the Romanian government

during virtually the entire POI.

Furthermore, we do not have sufficient

information from S.C. Republica

(Republica), a non-responding producer

of the subject merchandise representing

20 percent of the seamless pipe industry

in Romania. Therefore, we are unable to

determine whether the Romanian

government is involved in setting prices

or amounts to be produced for a

significant portion of the industry for

which we have no information on the

record. For a complete discussion of the

Department’s preliminary determination

that the seamless pipe industry does not

constitute a MOI, see the December 15,

1999, memorandum, Whether the

Seamless Pipe Industry in Romania

Should Be Treated as a Market-Oriented

Industry, which is on file in B–099.

Since the preliminary determination,

we received no new information from

either members of the Romanian

seamless pipe industry or the Romanian

government with respect to the MOI

issue. Moreover, the Department

conducted verifications of Silcotub’s

and Petrotub’s respective questionnaire

responses, and was able to confirm that

these two producers were in fact owned

primarily by the Romanian government

during virtually the entire POI.

Consequently, we find no new evidence

on the record to warrant a change to the

Department’s position to not grant MOI

status to the Romanian seamless pipe

industry for purposes of the final

determination. See Decision

Memorandum, Comment 3.

Separate Rates

It is the Department’s policy to assign

a single rate to all exporters of subject

merchandise subject to investigation in

a NME country unless an exporter can

demonstrate that it is sufficiently

independent so as to be entitled to a

separate rate. For purposes of this

‘‘separate rates’’ inquiry, the Department

analyzes each exporting entity under the

test established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,

1991) (Sparklers), as amplified in Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585

(May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Under

this test, exporters in NME countries are

entitled to separate, company-specific

margins when they can demonstrate an

absence of government control over

exports, both in law (de jure) and in fact

(de facto).

In our preliminary determination, we

found, according to the criteria

identified in Sparklers and Silicon

Carbide, that Sota and MBI had met the

criteria for the application of separate

antidumping duty rates. For a complete

discussion of the Department’s

determination that Sota and MBI are

entitled to separate rates, see the

January 28, 2000, memorandum,

Assignment of Separate Rates for

Respondents in the Antidumping Duty

Investigation of Certain Small Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Romania,

which is on file in the CRU. At

verification, we found no discrepancies

with the information provided in the

questionnaire responses of Sota and

MBI. We have not received any other

information since the preliminary

determination which would warrant

reconsideration of our separate rates

determinations with respect to these

companies. Therefore, we continue to

find that the responding companies in

this investigation should be assigned

individual dumping margins.

Romania-Wide Rate

As in all NME cases, the Department

implements a policy whereby there is a

rebuttable presumption that all

exporters or producers comprise a single

exporter under common government

control, the ‘‘NME entity.’’ The

Department assigns a single NME rate to

the NME entity, unless an exporter can

demonstrate eligibility for a separate

rate. Information on the record of this

investigation indicates that Sota and

MBI were the only Romanian exporters

to the United States of the subject

merchandise produced by Silcotub and

Petrotub. Further, as noted above,

although Republica produces the subject

merchandise, we have confirmed with

U.S. Customs that no subject

merchandise produced by Republica

was sold to the United States during the

POI, either directly by Republica or

through trading companies.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices 39127

Consistent with our preliminary

determination, since all exporters/

producers of the subject merchandise

sold to the United States during the POI

responded to the Department’s

questionnaire, and we have no reason to

believe that there are other nonresponding exporters/producers of the

subject merchandise during the POI, we

calculated a Romania-wide rate based

on the weighted-average margins

determined for Sota and MBI.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of the

subject merchandise by Sota and MBI to

the United States were made at LTFV,

we compared the export price (EP) to

the NV, as described in the Export Price

and Normal Value sections of this

notice, below. In accordance with

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to weighted-average NVs.

Export Price

We used EP methodology in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because Sota and MBI sold the

subject merchandise directly to

unaffiliated customers in the United

States prior to importation, and CEP

methodology was not otherwise

appropriate.

1. Sota

We calculated EP based on packed

C&F prices to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price (gross unit price) for

inland freight from the plant/warehouse

to the port of embarkation, brokerage

and handling in Romania, and ocean

freight. Because certain domestic inland

freight and brokerage and handling were

provided by NME companies, we based

those charges on surrogate rates from

Indonesia and Egypt. (See the Normal

Value section for further discussion.)

2. MBI

We calculated EP based on packed

FOB Romanian-port prices to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. Where appropriate, we made

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price) for inland freight from the

plant/warehouse to the port of

embarkation, and brokerage and

handling in Romania. As with Sota,

because certain domestic inland freight

and brokerage and handling were

provided by NME companies, we based

those charges on surrogate rates from

Indonesia and Egypt. (See the Normal

Value section for further discussion.)

Normal Value

A. Surrogate Country

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires

the Department to value the NME

producer’s factors of production, to the

extent possible, in one or more market

economy countries that: (1) are at a level

of economic development comparable to

that of the NME country; and (2) are

significant producers of comparable

merchandise.

For purposes of the final

determination, we find that Indonesia

remains the most appropriate surrogate

country for Romania. Consistent with

the Department’s preliminary

determination, we continue to use

Indonesia as the surrogate country for

Romania for purposes of the final

determination because Indonesia is a

significant producer of merchandise

comparable to the subject merchandise

and, contrary to other potential

surrogate countries, provides reliable

surrogate values for virtually all factors

of production. For discussion and

analysis regarding the surrogate country

selection for Romania, see Comment 1

in the Decision Memorandum.

B. Factors of Production

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on

factors of production reported by the

companies in Romania which produced

seamless pipes for the exporters that

sold seamless pipes to the United States

during the POI. We calculated NV based

on the same methodology used in the

preliminary determination. For Sota,

based on verification findings, we made

corrections with respect to billets, scrap,

lacquer, freight distance, and labor. For

MBI, we made corrections based on our

findings at verification with respect to

strap, electricity, gas, and labor. For the

preliminary determination, we used the

financial statements of three Indonesian

steel companies in order to determine

the factory overhead, SG&A, and profit

rates for the Romanian respondents. For

the final determination, we have relied

exclusively on the financial statements

of one of the three companies, P.T.

Krakatau. For a complete analysis of

surrogate values, see the June 19, 2000,

memorandum, Factors of Production

Valuation for Final Determination,

(Valuation Memorandum) on file in B–

099.

We valued labor using the method

described in 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3).

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified the information

submitted by the respondents for use in

our final determination. We used

standard verification procedures

including examination of relevant

accounting and production records, and

original source documents provided by

the respondents.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

investigation are addressed in the June

19, 2000, Decision Memorandum which

is hereby adopted by this notice.

Attached to this notice as an appendix

is a list of the issues which parties have

raised and to which we have responded

in the Decision Memorandum. Parties

can find a complete discussion of all

issues raised in this investigation and

the corresponding recommendations in

this public memorandum which is on

file in B–099. In addition, a complete

version of the Decision Memorandum

can be accessed directly on the Web at

www.ita.doc.gov/import_admin/

records/frn. The paper copy and

electronic version of the Decision

Memorandum are identical in content.

Suspension of Liquidation

Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the

Act, we are instructing the Customs

Service to continue to suspend

liquidation of all entries of certain small

diameter carbon and alloy seamless

standard, line and pressure pipe from

Romania that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after February 4, 2000, the date of

publication of the Preliminary

Determination. The Customs Service

shall continue to require a cash deposit

or the posting of a bond based on the

estimated weighted-average dumping

margins shown below. The suspension

of liquidation instructions will remain

in effect until further notice.

We determine that the following

weighted-average dumping margins

exist for the period April 1, 1998

through March 31, 1999:

Exporter/manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin percentage

Sota Communication Co .......... 19.11

Metal Business International

S.R.L. .................................... 11.08

Romania-wide rate ................... 14.99

The Romania-wide rate applies to all entries

of the subject merchandise except for entries

from exporters/producers that are identified individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 735(d) of

the Act, we have notified the

International Trade Commission (ITC) of

our determination. As our final

39128 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 122 / Friday, June 23, 2000 / Notices

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine, within 45 days, whether

these imports are causing material

injury, or threat of material injury, to an

industry in the United States. If the ITC

determines that material injury or threat

of injury does not exist, the proceeding

will be terminated and all securities

posted will be refunded or canceled. If

the ITC determines that such injury

does exist, the Department will issue an

antidumping duty order directing

Customs officials to assess antidumping

duties on all imports of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the effective date of the suspension

of liquidation.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration,

Appendix

List of Comments in the Issues and Decision

Memorandum

I. General Issues

Comment 1: Surrogate Country Selection

and Sources of Surrogate Values

Comment 2: SG&A, Profit and Overhead

Calculation

Comment 3: Market-Oriented Industry

Issue

Comment 4: Assignment of Dumping

Margins to the Producers Instead of the

Trading Companies

Comment 5: Surrogate Value for Billets

Comment 6: Surrogate Value for Labor

Comment 7: Surrogate Value for Electricity

Comment 8: Surrogate Value for Rail

Freight

II. Issues Specific to S.C. Silcotub S.A.

Comment 9: Scrap Factor Calculation

Comment 10: Lacquer Factor Calculation

III. Issue Specific to S.C. Petrotub S.A.

Comment 11: Electricity and Gas Factors

Calculation

[FR Doc. 00–15967 Filed 6–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–856]

Notice of Amendment of Antidumping

Duty Order: Synthetic Indigo From the

People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Dinah

McDougall, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–4136 or (202) 482–3773,

respectively.

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 (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations refer to 19

CFR part 351 (1999).

Scope of Order

The products subject to this

investigation are the deep blue synthetic

vat dye known as synthetic indigo and

those of its derivatives designated

commercially as ‘‘Vat Blue 1.’’ Included

are Vat Blue 1 (synthetic indigo), Color

Index No. 73000, and its derivatives,

pre-reduced indigo or indigo white

(Color Index No. 73001) and solubilized

indigo (Color Index No. 73002). The

subject merchandise may be sold in any

form (e.g., powder, granular, paste,

liquid, or solution) and in any strength.

Synthetic indigo and its derivatives

subject to this investigation are

currently classifiable under subheadings

3204.15.10.00, 3204.15.40.00 or

3204.15.80.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

under investigation is dispositive.

Amendment to Antidumping Duty

Order

On June 12, 2000, in accordance with

section 735(d) of the Act, the U.S.

International Trade Commission (ITC)

notified the Department that a U.S.

industry is materially injured by reason

of imports of synthetic indigo from the

PRC, pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A) of

the Act. In addition, the ITC found that

critical circumstances exist with regard

to such imports from the PRC.

On June 19, 2000, in accordance with

section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the

Department published its amended final

determination and antidumping duty

order on synthetic indigo from the

People’s Republic of China. See Notice

of Amendment of Final Determination

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Antidumping Duty Order: Synthetic

Indigo from the People’s Republic of

China, 65 FR 37961, (June 19, 2000).

However, in that publication, we

inadvertently omitted the revised

margin percentage for one company,

Wuhan Tianjin Chemicals Imports &

Exports Corp., Ltd. This amended order

is being published to correct this error.

In accordance with section 736(a)(1)

of the Act, the Department will direct

the United States Customs Service to

assess, upon further advice by the

Department, antidumping duties equal

to the amount by which the normal

value of the merchandise exceeds the

export price or constructed export price

of the merchandise for all relevant

entries of synthetic indigo from the PRC.

These antidumping duties will be

assessed on all unliquidated entries of

imports of the subject merchandise that

are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

September 15, 1999, the date 90 days

prior to the date of publication of the

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register, in accordance with the

critical circumstances finding in the

final determination.

On or after the date of publication of

this notice in the Federal Register, U.S.

Customs officers must require, at the

same time as importers would normally

deposit estimated duties, the cash

deposits listed below for the subject

merchandise. The ‘‘PRC-wide Rate’’

applies to all exporters of synthetic

indigo not specifically listed below.

The revised final weighted-average

margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer

Original

final

margin

percentage

Revised

final

margin

percentage

Wonderful Chemical Industrial Ltd./Jiangsu

Taifeng Chemical Industry Co., Ltd .......... 77.89 79.70

China National Chemical Construction

Jiangsu Company ..... 77.89 79.70

China Jiangsu International Economic

Technical Cooperation Corp ................... 77.89 79.70

Shanghai Yongchen

International Trading

Company Ltd ............. 77.89 79.70

Hebei Jinzhou Import &

Export Corporation .... 77.89 79.70

Sinochem Hebei Import

& Export Corp ........... 77.89 79.70

Chongqing Dyestuff Import & Export United

Corp .......................... 7.89 79.70

Wuhan Tianjin Chemicals Imports & Exports Corp., Ltd ......... 77.89 79.70

PRC-wide rate .............. 129.60 129.60