39364 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

Critical Circumstances

No comments were received regarding

the Department’s preliminary critical

circumstances determination. For the

reasons given in the preliminary

determination of critical circumstances,

the Department continues to find that

critical circumstances exist with respect

to small diameter seamless pipe

imported from Nova Hut, in accordance

with section 733(e)(1) of the Act.

As set forth in the preliminary

determination of critical circumstances,

because the massive imports criterion

necessary to find critical circumstances

has not been met with respect to firms

other than Nova Hut, the Department

continues to find, for the purposes of

this final determination, that critical

circumstances do not exist for imports

of small diameter seamless pipe for the

‘‘all others’’ category.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing

the Customs Service to continue to

suspend the liquidation of all entries of

small diameter seamless pipe from the

Czech Republic produced by Nova Hut

that are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

November 6, 1999, which is 90 days

prior to the date of publication of the

Preliminary Determination in the

Federal Register. The Customs Service

will also be directed to continue to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

small diameter seamless pipe from the

Czech Republic produced by all

companies not named above, that are

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,

for consumption on or after February 4,

2000, the date of publication of our

Preliminary Determination in the

Federal Register. The Customs Service

shall continue to require a cash deposit

or the posting of a bond equal to the

weighted-average dumping margin, as

indicated in the chart below. These

suspension of liquidation instructions

will remain in effect until further notice.

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act

provides that, where the estimated

weighted-averaged dumping margins

established for all exporters and

producers individually investigated are

zero or de minimis or are determined

entirely under section 776 of the Act,

the Department may use any reasonable

method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers

not individually investigated. Our

recent practice under these

circumstances has been to assign, as the

‘‘all others’’ rate, the simple average of

the margins in the petition. See Notice

of Final Determinations of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel

Products From Argentina, Japan and

Thailand, 65 FR 5520 (February 4,

2000); see also Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil

from Canada, 64 FR 15457 (March 31,

1999); and Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate in Coil

from Italy, 64 FR 15458, 15459 (March

21, 1999).

In this case, we have calculated the

dumping margin for the sole Czech

respondent based entirely on adverse

facts available. Given the circumstances

of this case, and the discretion provided

by section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, we

have selected a somewhat different

methodology to establish the ‘‘all

others’’ rate. Instead of relying on the

simple average of the petition margins,

we have relied on the weighted-average

of the margins obtained for each product

sold during the POI, by using the

respondent’s data. This is consistent

with our methodology in a recent

determination. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products

From Slovakia, 65 FR 34657, 34658

(May 31, 2000). The resulting margin,

applicable to all other manufacturers/

exporters, is 32.26 percent.

We determine that the following

weighted-average dumping margins

exist for April 1, 1998, through March

31, 1999:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent)

Nova Hut, a.s ............................ 39.93

All Others .................................. 32.26

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

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will, within 45 days, determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that

material injury or threat of material

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 the

Customs Service 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 pursuant to 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 and Issues in the Decision

Memorandum

1. Request for Rescission of Initiation

2. Facts Available

[FR Doc. 00–16101 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–854]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Tin

Mill Products From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samantha Denenberg or Linda Ludwig,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230;

telephone 202–482–1386 and 202–482–

3833, 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 (‘‘Act’’)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(‘‘URAA’’). In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all citations to the

Department regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (April

1999).

Final Determination

We determine that Certain Tin Mill

Products (‘‘TMP’’) from Japan are being,

or are 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 are shown in the

‘‘Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

On April 12, 2000, we published in

the Federal Register the preliminary

determination in this investigation. See

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39365

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain

Tin Mill Products from Japan, 65 FR

19737 (April 12, 2000) (‘‘Preliminary

Determination’’). No interested parties

have filed case briefs or rebuttal briefs

on the Preliminary Determination and

no request for a hearing has been

received by the Department. On May 16,

2000, and June 7, 2000, petitioners

submitted an additional scope exclusion

request. On June 12, 2000, and June 14,

2000, petitioners submitted further

modification of the June 7, 2000 scope

exclusion request See Scope

Amendment Memorandum from

Richard Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini,

June 19, 2000.

Scope of Investigation

The scope of this investigation

includes tin mill flat-rolled products

that are coated or plated with tin,

chromium or chromium oxides. Flatrolled steel products coated with tin are

known as tin plate. Flat-rolled steel

products coated with chromium or

chromium oxides are known as tin-free

steel or electrolytic chromium-coated

steel. The scope includes all the noted

tin mill products regardless of

thickness, width, form (in coils or cut

sheets), coating type (electrolytic or

otherwise), edge (trimmed, untrimmed

or further processed, such and scroll

cut), coating thickness, surface finish,

temper, coating metal (tin, chromium,

chromium oxide), reduction (single- or

double-reduced), and whether or not

coated with a plastic material.

All products that meet the written

physical description are within the

scope of this investigation unless

specifically excluded. The following

products, by way of example, are

outside and/or specifically excluded

from the scope of this investigation:

• Single reduced electrolytically

chromium coated steel with a thickness

0.238 mm (85 pound base box) (+/

¥10%) or 0.251 mm (90 pound base

box) (+/¥10%) or 0.255 mm (+/¥10%)

with 770 mm (minimum width) (¥0/

+1.588 mm) by 900 mm (maximum

length if sheared) sheet size or 30.6875

inches (minimum width) (¥0/+1⁄16

inch) and 35.4 inches (maximum length

if sheared) sheet size; with type MR or

higher (per ASTM) A623 steel

chemistry; batch annealed at T21⁄2

anneal temper, with a yield strength of

31 to 42 kpsi (214 to 290 Mpa); with a

tensile strength of 43 to 58 kpsi (296 to

400 Mpa); with a chrome coating

restricted to 32 to 150 mg/m2 with a

chrome oxide coating restricted to 6 to

25 mg/m2 with a modified 7B ground

roll finish or blasted roll finish; with

roughness average (Ra) 0.10 to 0.35

micrometers, measured with a stylus

instrument with a stylus radius of 2 to

5 microns, a trace length of 5.6 mm, and

a cut-off of 0.8 mm, and the

measurement traces shall be made

perpendicular to the rolling direction;

with an oil level of 0.17 to 0.37 grams/

base box as type BSO, or 2.5 to 5.5 mg/

m2 as type DOS, or 3.5 to 6.5 mg/m2 as

type ATBC; with electrical conductivity

of static probe voltage drop of 0.46 volts

drop maximum, and with electrical

conductivity degradation to 0.70 volts

drop maximum after stoving (heating to

400 degrees F for 100 minutes followed

by a cool to room temperature).

• Single reduced electrolytically

chromium-or tin-coated steel in the

gauges of 0.0040 inch nominal, 0.0045

inch nominal, 0.0050 inch nominal,

0.0061 inch nominal (55 pound base

box weight), 0.0066 inch nominal (60

pound base box weight), and 0.0072

inch nominal (65 pound base box

weight), regardless of width, temper,

finish, coating or other properties.

• Single reduced electrolytically

chromium coated steel in the gauge of

0.024 inch, with widths of 27.0 inches

or 31.5 inches, and with T–1 temper

properties.

• Single reduced electrolytically

chromium coated steel, with a chemical

composition of 0.005% max carbon,

0.030% max silicon, 0.25% max

manganese, 0.025% max phosphorous,

0.025% max sulfur, 0.070% max

aluminum, and the balance iron, with a

metallic chromium layer of 70–130 mg/

m2, with a chromium oxide layer of 5–

30 mg/m2, with a tensile strength of

260–440 N/mm 2; with an elongation of

28–48%, with a hardness (HR–30T) of

40–58, with a surface roughness of 0.5–

1.5 microns Ra, with magnetic

properties of Bm (KG) 10.0 minimum,

Br (KG) 8.0 minimum, Hc (Oe) 2.5–3.8,

and μ1400 minimum, as measured with

a Riken Denshi DC magnetic

characteristic measuring machine,

Model BHU–60.

• Bright finish tin-coated sheet with a

thickness equal to or exceeding 0.0299

inch, coated to thickness of 3⁄4 pound

(0.000045 inch) and 1 pound (0.00006

inch).

• Electrolytically chromium coated

steel having ultra flat shape defined as

oil can maximum depth of 5⁄64 inch (2.0

mm) and edge wave maximum of 5⁄64

inch (2.0 mm) and no wave to penetrate

more than 2.0 inches (51.0 mm) from

the strip edge and coilset or curling

requirements of average maximum of

5⁄64 inch (2.0 mm) (based on six

readings, three across each cut edge of

a 24 inches (61 cm) long sample with no

single reading exceeding 4⁄32 inch (3.2

mm) and no more than two readings at

4⁄32 inch (3.2 mm)) and (for 85 pound

base box item only: crossbuckle

maximums of 0.001 inch (0.0025 mm)

average having no reading above 0.005

inch (0.127 mm)), with a camber

maximum of 1⁄4 inch (6.3 mm) per 20

feet (6.1 meters), capable of being bent

120 degrees on a 0.002 inch radius

without cracking, with a chromium

coating weight of metallic chromium at

100 mg/square meter and chromium

oxide of 10 mg/square meter, with a

chemistry of 0.13% maximum carbon,

0.60% maximum manganese, 0.15%

maximum silicon, 0.20% maximum

copper, 0.04% maximum phosphorous,

0.05% maximum sulfur, and 0.20%

maximum aluminum, with a surface

finish of Stone Finish 7C, with a DOS–

A oil at an aim level of 2 mg/square

meter, with not more than 15

inclusions/foreign matter in 15 feet (4.6

meters) (with inclusions not to exceed

1⁄32 inch (0.8 mm) in width and 3⁄64 inch

(1.2 mm) in length), with thickness/

temper combinations of either 60 pound

base box (0.0066 inch) double reduced

CADR8 temper in widths of 25.00

inches, 27.00 inches, 27.50 inches,

28.00 inches, 28.25 inches, 28.50

inches, 29.50 inches, 29.75 inches,

30.25 inches, 31.00 inches, 32.75

inches, 33.75 inches, 35.75 inches,

36.25 inches, 39.00 inches, or 43.00

inches, or 85 pound base box (0.0094

inch) single reduced CAT4 temper in

widths of 25.00 inches, 27.00 inches,

28.00 inches, 30.00 inches, 33.00

inches, 33.75 inches, 35.75 inches,

36.25 inches, or 43.00 inches, with

width tolerance of ¥0/+1⁄8 inch, with a

thickness tolerance of ¥/+ 0.0005 inch,

with a maximum coil weight of 20,000

pounds (9071.0 kg), with a minimum

coil weight of 18,000 pounds (8164.8 kg)

with a coil inside diameter of 16 inches

(40.64 cm) with a steel core, with a coil

maximum outside diameter of 59.5

inches (151.13 cm), with a maximum of

one weld (identified with a paper flag)

per coil, with a surface free of scratches,

holes, and rust.

• Electrolytically tin coated steel

having differential coating with 1.00

pound/base box equivalent on the heavy

side, with varied coating equivalents in

the lighter side (detailed below), with a

continuous cast steel chemistry of type

MR, with a surface finish of type 7B or

7C, with a surface passivation of 0.7 mg/

square foot of chromium applied as a

cathodic dichromate treatment, with

coil form having restricted oil film

weights of 0.3–0.4 grams/base box of

type DOS–A oil, coil inside diameter

ranging from 15.5 to 17 inches, coil

outside diameter of a maximum 64

inches, with a maximum coil weight of

39366 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

25,000 pounds, and with temper/

coating/dimension combinations of: (1)

CAT 4 temper, 1.00/.050 pound/base

box coating, 70 pound/base box (0.0077

inch) thickness, and 33.1875 inch

ordered width; or (2) CAT5 temper,

1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 75

pound/base box (0.0082 inch) thickness,

and 34.9375 inch or 34.1875 inch

ordered width; or (3) CAT5 temper,

1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 107

pound/base box (0.0118 inch) thickness,

and 30.5625 inch or 35.5625 inch

ordered width; or (4) CADR8 temper,

1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 85

pound/base box (0.0093 inch) thickness,

and 35.5625 inch ordered width; or (5)

CADR8 temper, 1.00/0.25 pound/base

box coating, 60 pound/base box (0.0066

inch) thickness, and 35.9375 inch

ordered width; or (6) CADR8 temper,

1.00/0.25 pound/base box coating, 70

pound/base box (0.0077 inch) thickness,

and 32.9375 inch, 33.125 inch, or

35.1875 inch ordered width.

• Electrolytically tin coated steel

having differential coating with 1.00

pound/base box equivalent on the heavy

side, with varied coating equivalents on

the lighter side (detailed below), with a

continuous cast steel chemistry of type

MR, with a surface finish of type 7B or

7C, with a surface passivation of 0.5 mg/

square foot of chromium applied as a

cathodic dichromate treatment, with

ultra flat scroll cut sheet form, with CAT

5 temper with 1.00/0.10 pound/base box

coating, with a lithograph logo printed

in a uniform pattern on the 0.10 pound

coating side with a clear protective coat,

with both sides waxed to a level of 15–

20 mg/216 sq. in., with ordered

dimension combinations of (1) 75

pound/base box (0.0082 inch) thickness

and 34.9375 inch × 31.748 inch scroll

cut dimensions; or (2) 75 pound/base

box (0.0082 inch) thickness and 34.1875

inch × 29.076 inch scroll cut

dimensions; or (3) 107 pound/base box

(0.0118 inch) thickness and 30.5625

inch × 34.125 inch scroll cut dimension.

The merchandise subject to this

investigation is classified in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), under HTSUS

subheadings 7210.11.0000,

7210.12.0000, 7210.50.0000,

7212.10.0000, and 7212.50.0000 if of

non-alloy steel and under HTSUS

subheadings 7225.99.0090, and

7226.99.0000 if of alloy steel. Although

the subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is

October 1, 1998 through September 30,

1999.

Facts Available

In the Preliminary Determination, the

Department based the dumping margins

for respondents Nippon Steel

Corporation (‘‘NSC’’), Kawasaki Steel

Corporation (‘‘Kawasaki’’), NKK

Corporation (‘‘NKK’’), and Toyo Kohan

(‘‘Toyo’’) on facts otherwise available

under Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act

because these respondents failed to

participate in the investigation and

failed to provide information requested

by the Department needed to calculate

a dumping margin as detailed in the

Preliminary Determination. The

Department based the dumping margins

for respondents NSC and Toyo on facts

otherwise available under Section

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act because the

respondents failed to provide the

information requested by the

Department in the form or manner

requested as detailed in the Preliminary

Determination. The Department based

the dumping margins for respondents

NKK and Kawasaki on facts otherwise

available under Section 776(a)(2)(A) of

the Act because these respondents only

provided information responding to

Section A of the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire and failed to

provide any other information requested

by the Department needed to calculate

a dumping margin as detailed in the

Preliminary Determination.

In selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, section 776(b) of

the Act provides that adverse inferences

may be used when a party fails to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with the Department’s

requests for information. As detailed in

the Preliminary Determination, the

Department has determined that the use

of adverse inferences is warranted for all

respondents because all respondents

have failed to cooperate to the best of

their abilities in this investigation.

Further, section 776(b) of the Act

states that an adverse inference may

include reliance on information derived

from the petition or any other

information placed on the record. See

also ‘‘Statement of Administrative

Action’’ (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the

URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, 829–831

(1994). Pursuant to Section 776(b) of the

Act, the Department applied the highest

margin calculated from the information

placed on the record by petitioners on

October 28, 1999 and November 8, 1999.

We continue to find this margin

corroborated, pursuant to section 776(c)

of the Act, for the reasons discussed in

the Preliminary Determination. No

interested parties have objected to the

use of adverse facts available for the

mandatory respondents in this

investigation, nor to the Department’s

choice of facts available. Furthermore,

the Department has received no request

for a hearing in this investigation.

Accordingly, for its final determination,

the Department is continuing the use of

the highest margin alleged by

petitioners for all non-responding

mandatory respondents in this

investigation.

The All-Others Rate

No interested parties have filed case

briefs or rebuttal briefs on this issue.

Accordingly, the Department is

continuing to base the ‘‘all-others’’ rate

on the simple average of margins

submitted to the record by petitioners

on October 28, 1999 and November 8,

1999, which is 32.52 percent, as

discussed in the Preliminary

Determination.

Continuation of Suspension of

Liquidation

In accordance with section

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing

the U.S. Customs Service (‘‘Customs’’)

to continue to suspend liquidation of all

entries of subject merchandise from

Japan that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after April 12, 2000, the date of

publication of the Preliminary

Determination in the Federal Register.

We will instruct Customs to require a

cash deposit or posting of a bond for

each entry equal to the margins shown

below. These suspension of liquidation

instructions will remain in effect until

further notice. The weighted-average

dumping margins are as follows:

Exporter/Manufacturer

Weightedaverage

margin

(percentage)

Kawasaki Steel Corporation ..... 95.29

Nippon Steel Corporation ......... 95.29

NKK Corporation ...................... 95.29

Toyo Kohan .............................. 95.29

All Others .................................. 32.52

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

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will, within 45 days, determine whether

these imports are materially injuring, or

threaten material injury to, the U.S.

industry. If the ITC determines that

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39367

material injury, or threat of material

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.

[FR Doc. 00–16108 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–815]

Certain Welded Stainless Steel Pipe

From Taiwan: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and Determination To Revoke

Order In Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results in the

antidumping duty administrative review

of certain welded stainless steel pipe

from Taiwan and determination to

revoke order in part.

SUMMARY: On December 22, 1999, the

Department of Commerce

(‘‘Department’’) published the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain welded stainless steel pipe

from Taiwan. This review covers one

manufacturer/exporter of the subject

merchandise. The period of review

(‘‘POR’’) is December 1, 1997 through

November 30, 1998.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based upon our

verification of the data and analysis of

the comments received, we have made

changes in the margin calculation.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results of this review.

The final weighted-average dumping

margin is listed below in the section

titled ‘‘Final Results of the Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Juanita H. Chen or Robert A. Bolling,

Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone

202–482–0409 (Chen) or 202–482–3434

(Bolling), fax 202–482–1388.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930

(‘‘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’s regulations are to the

regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (1999).

Background

On December 30, 1992, the

Department published the antidumping

duty order on certain welded stainless

steel pipe from Taiwan. See Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe From

Taiwan: Amended Final Determination

and Antidumping Order, 57 FR 62300

(December 30, 1992). On December 8,

1998, the Department published a notice

of opportunity to request administrative

review of this order for the period

December 1, 1997 through November

30, 1998. See Antidumping or

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity

to Request Administrative Review, 63

FR 67646 (December 8, 1998). Both Ta

Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (‘‘Ta

Chen’’), a Taiwan producer and exporter

of subject merchandise, and Petitioners,

Avesta Sheffield Pipe Co., Damascus

Tube Division, Damascus-Bishop Tube

Co., and the United Steelworkers of

America, AFL–CIO/CLC (collectively

‘‘Petitioners’’), timely requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of Ta Chen’s sales. Ta Chen also

requested revocation of the

Department’s antidumping duty order

on welded stainless steel pipe from

Taiwan. On January 25, 1999, in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Act, the Department published in the

Federal Register a notice of initiation of

this antidumping duty administrative

review for the period December 1, 1997

through November 30, 1998 (64 FR

3682).

On December 22, 1999, the

Department published the preliminary

results of the administrative review in

the Federal Register. See Certain

Welded Stainless Steel Pipe from

Taiwan: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Administrative Review

and Intent to Revoke in Part, 64 FR

71728 (December 22, 1999)

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On January 17,

2000 through January 25, 2000, the

Department conducted verification of Ta

Chen’s home market data at Ta Chen’s

headquarters in Tainan, Taiwan. On

April 4, 2000 through April 7, 2000, the

Department conducted verification of Ta

Chen’s U.S. sales data at the Long

Beach, California office of Ta Chen’s

U.S. affiliate, Ta Chen International

Corp. (‘‘TCI’’). We gave interested

parties an opportunity to comment on

our Preliminary Results. Ta Chen filed

a case brief on May 23, 2000; Petitioners

did not file a case brief or a rebuttal

brief. No hearing was requested or held.

The Department has conducted and

completed the administrative review in

accordance with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The merchandise subject to this

administrative review is certain welded

austenitic stainless steel pipe (‘‘WSSP’’)

that meets the standards and

specifications set forth by the American

Society for Testing and Materials

(‘‘ASTM’’) for the welded form of

chromium-nickel pipe designated

ASTM A–312. The merchandise covered

by the scope of the order also includes

austenitic welded stainless steel pipes

made according to the standards of

other nations which are comparable to

ASTM A–312.

WSSP is produced by forming

stainless steel flat-rolled products into a

tubular configuration and welding along

the seam. WSSP is a commodity product

generally used as a conduit to transmit

liquids or gases. Major applications for

WSSP include, but are not limited to,

digester lines, blow lines,

pharmaceutical lines, petrochemical

stock lines, brewery process and

transport lines, general food processing

lines, automotive paint lines, and paper

process machines.

Imports of WSSP are currently

classifiable under the following

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) subheadings:

7306.40.5005, 7306.40.5015,

7306.40.5040, 7306.40.5062,

7306.40.5064, 7306.40.5085. Although

these subheadings include both pipes

and tubes, the scope of this review is

limited to welded austenitic stainless

steel pipes. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case brief to

this administrative review are addressed