39358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices

1The petitioners in this investigation are: U.S.

Steel Group, Lorain Tubular Co. LLC (both units of

USX Corp.), and the United Steel Workers of

America.

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 IPA from Belgium 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withdrawn from warehouse, for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 Prayon 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 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, 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 14.67

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) of the Act.

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–16105 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–827]

Notice of Final Determination of Sales

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Large

Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless

Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe

From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Sales at Less than Fair

Value.

SUMMARY: On February 4, 2000, the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) published its preliminary

determination of sales at less than fair

value of certain large diameter carbon

and alloy seamless standard, line and

pressure pipe (‘‘large diameter seamless

pipe’’) from Mexico. The investigation

covers one manufacturer/exporter,

Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A.

(‘‘TAMSA’’). The period of investigation

(‘‘POI’’) is April 1, 1998, through March

31, 1999.

Based on our analysis of comments

received, we have made changes in the

margin calculations. Therefore, the final

determination differs from the

preliminary determination. The final

weighted-average dumping margin for

the investigated company is listed

below in the ‘‘Continuation of

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of

this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell Morris or Geoffrey Craig, AD/

CVD Enforcement, Office 6, Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1775 or

(202) 482–4161, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

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 regulations refer to

the regulations codified at 19 CFR part

351 (April 1999).

Case History

Since the preliminary determination

(see 65 FR 5587 (February 4, 2000)

(‘‘Preliminary Determination’’)), the

following events have occurred:

• On February 11, 2000, the

petitioners 1 submitted ministerial error

allegations. The Department accepted

the clerical errors and corrected the

margin calculation program where it

deemed necessary and published a

Notice of Amended Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line, and Pressure Pipe From Mexico,

65 FR 13715 (March 14, 2000).

• The Department verified the

responses of TAMSA, in Veracruz,

Mexico from February 21 through

February 25, 2000, and in Houston,

Texas from March 1 through March 3,

2000. (see the ‘‘Verification’’ section

below).

• On April 26, 2000, the petitioners

requested that the Department amend

the scope to exclude certain line and

riser pipe for use exclusively in

deepwater applications and the

Department accepted the revised scope

language. See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from Japan; and

Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and the

Republic of South Africa, 65 FR 25907

(May 4, 2000).

• TAMSA and the petitioners filed

case and rebuttal briefs on May 1, 2000

and May 8, 2000, respectively.

• On May 15, 2000, we rejected

portions of TAMSA’s rebuttal brief on

the grounds that it contained new

factual information. On May 16, 2000,

TAMSA resubmitted its rebuttal brief in

accordance with the Department’s

instructions.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and

rebuttal briefs by parties to this

investigation, as well as certain other

findings by the Department which are

summarized in this notice, are

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision

Memorandum for the Final

Determination in the Antidumping Duty

Investigation of Certain Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe from

Mexico’April 1, 1998, through March

31, 1999’’ (‘‘Decision Memorandum’’),

from Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Import

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 123 / Monday, June 26, 2000 / Notices 39359

Administration, to Richard W.

Moreland, Acting Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, dated June 19,

2000, which is hereby adopted by this

notice. A list of issues which 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 can

find a complete discussion of all issues

raised in this investigation and the

corresponding recommendations in this

public Decision Memorandum which is

on file in the Central Records Unit, of

the main Department building (‘‘Room

B–099’’). In addition, a complete version

of the Decision Memorandum can be

accessed directly on the World Wide

Web at: www.ita.doc.gov/

import_admin/records/frn. The paper

copy and electronic version of the

Decision Memorandum are identical in

content.

Scope of Investigation

The products covered by the

investigation are large diameter

seamless carbon and alloy (other than

stainless) steel standard, line, and

pressure pipes.

For a complete description of the

scope of this investigation, see the

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section of the

Decision Memorandum. The scope of

the investigation has been amended

since the Preliminary Determination.

Product Comparisons

We compared the products sold by

the respondent in the comparison

market during the POI to the products

sold in the United States during the POI

using the methodology described in the

Preliminary Determination.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of large

diameter seamless pipe from Mexico

were made in the United States at less

than fair value, we compared

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to the

normal value (‘‘NV’’). Our calculations

followed the methodologies described

in the Preliminary Determination,

except as noted below and in the ‘‘Final

Determination Calculation

Memorandum for the Investigation of

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Mexico

(‘‘Calculation Memorandum’’), from

Russell Morris, Case Analyst, to John

Brinkmann, Program Manager, dated

June 16, 2000, which has been placed in

the file in Room B–099.

1. CEP

For the price to the United States, we

used CEP as defined in section 772 of

the Act. We calculated CEP based on the

same methodology as in the Preliminary

Determination, with the following

exceptions:

The petitioners, in their case brief,

alleged certain errors concerning the

merchandise processing fee and inland

freight expenses. See Comments 5 and

6, respectively, of the Decision

Memorandum for a further discussion.

We accepted their allegations and made

the respective adjustments in the CEP

calculation.

2. NV

We used the same methodology to

calculate NV as that described in the

Preliminary Determination, with the

following exception:

The petitioners, in their case brief,

alleged an error concerning the variable

cost of manufacturing. See Comment 3

of the Decision Memorandum for a

further discussion. We accepted their

allegation and made the adjustment in

the NV calculation.

3. Level of Trade Analysis

We made the same level of trade

determinations described in the

Preliminary Determination.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with section 773A of the Act

in the same manner as in the

Preliminary Determination.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified the information

submitted by the respondent for use in

our final determination. We used

standard verification procedures,

including examination of relevant

accounting and production records, as

well as original source documents

provided by the respondents.

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

large diameter seamless pipe from

Mexico that are entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after February 4, 2000, the date of

publication of the 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.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Tubos de Acero de Mexico ...... 19.65

All Others .................................. 19.65

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

Comment 1: Coding of U.S. Market Products

Comment 2: Date of Sale Methodology

Comment 3: Variable Cost of Manufacture

Comment 4: Direct Selling Expenses

Comment 5: Merchandise Processing Fee

Comment 6: U.S. Inland Freight Expenses

Comment 7: Unreported U.S. Sales

Comment 8: Short-Term Borrowing Rate

Comment 9: Calculation of Credit Expense

Comment 10: Export Price (‘‘EP’’)/

Constructed Export Price (‘‘CEP’’) Sales

Classification

Comment 11: CEP Profit Calculation

[FR Doc. 00–16102 Filed 6–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P