[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48594-48597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24470]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-588-835]


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

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

ACTION: Final results of antidumping duty administrative review.

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

SUMMARY: On May 12, 1997, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the preliminary results of the administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods 
(``OCTG'') from Japan. This review covers one producer/exporter, NKK 
Corporation of Japan (``NKK''), entries of drill pipe during the period 
August 11, 1995 through July 31, 1996, and entries of OCTG other than 
drill pipe during the period February 2, 1995 through July 31, 1996. We 
gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary 
results. After reviewing the comments received, we have determined not 
to change the results from those presented in the preliminary results 
of review.
    This review was initiated in response to requests by importers, 
Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (``H&P'') and Caprock Pipe and Supply 
(``Caprock''), for a review of

[[Page 48595]]

NKK and HEBRA AS (``HEBRA''), respectively. Although we initiated a 
review of both NKK and HEBRA, we rescinded the review with respect to 
HEBRA because Caprock timely withdrew its request for review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Bezirganian, Alain Letort, or 
John Kugelman, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III--Office 8, Import 
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20230, telephone 202/482-1395 (Bezirganian), 202/482-4243 (Letort), or 
202/482-0649 (Kugelman), fax 202/482-1388.

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 19 CFR Part 353 (April 1997).

Background

    The Department published an antidumping duty order on OCTG from 
Japan on August 11, 1995 (60 FR 41058). The Department published a 
notice of ``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of the 
antidumping duty order for the 1995/96 review period on August 12, 1996 
(61 FR 41768). On August 28, 1996, H&P, an importer of drill pipe, 
requested an administrative review of sales of subject merchandise 
produced by NKK and imported, or withdrawn from a foreign trade zone, 
during the review period (August 11, 1995, through July 31, 1996) for 
drill pipe. We initiated a review of NKK on September 17, 1996 (61 FR 
48882). Caprock, an importer of used OCTG, requested a review of HEBRA 
(which Caprock identified as a Norwegian-based export company), but 
later timely withdrew that request.
    On May 12, 1997, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of the first administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on OCTG from Japan (62 FR 25889). The Department 
has now completed this administrative review in accordance with section 
751 of the Act.

Scope of the Review

    The merchandise covered by this order is OCTG, hollow steel 
products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing, 
tubing and drill pipe, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both 
carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not 
conforming to American Petroleum Institute (``API'') or non-API 
specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes 
and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing, 
tubing, or drill pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. The 
OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item numbers: 
7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 
7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 
7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 
7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 
7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 
7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 
7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 
7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 
7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 
7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7304.21.30.00, 7304.21.60.30, 
7304.21.60.45, 7304.21.60.60, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 
7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 
7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 
7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50.
    Many of these HTSUS numbers reflect changes made to the HTSUS since 
the less-than-fair value (``LTFV'') investigation. Although the HTSUS 
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the 
written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
    The period of review (``POR'') is August 11, 1995 through July 31, 
1996, for drill pipe, and February 2, 1995 through July 31, 1996, for 
OCTG other than drill pipe. This review covers entries of OCTG produced 
by NKK.

Analysis of Comments Received

    We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 
preliminary results. We received comments from H&P on June 10, 1997. 
H&P requested a public hearing, which was held on July 2, 1997.

H&P's Comments

    H&P argues that sales of merchandise entered by H&P during the POR 
are not subject to this administrative review because the dates of sale 
associated with these entries are prior to the POR, and, in fact, prior 
to the imposition of the antidumping order.
    H&P states that it purchased the merchandise from MC Tubular 
Products, Inc. (``MCTP''), a Japanese corporation, and imported it into 
a foreign trade zone. H&P indicates it believes MCTP had purchased this 
merchandise from Mitsubishi Corporation, a Japanese trading company, 
and that Mitsubishi Corporation (``MC'') had purchased the merchandise 
from NKK, an unaffiliated Japanese manufacturer. Furthermore, H&P 
indicates that it was its understanding that NKK had known that the 
ultimate destination of the merchandise was the United States.
    H&P concludes that ``[g]iven the structure of these transactions, 
the sale from NKK to Mitsubishi Corporation constituted an exporter's 
price sale (see e.g., Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller 
Bearings) and Parts Thereof From the Federal Republic of Germany; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 56 FR 31747 (July 
11, 1991); Antifriction Bearings (Other than Tapered Roller Bearings) 
and Parts Thereof From France et al.; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 57 FR 28428 (June 24, 1992),'' and, ``[a]s 
such, the date of sale should be considered to be the date of NKK's 
invoice to MC.'' Case Brief of H&P (June 10, 1997) at 3. Alternatively, 
H&P submits that the date of the purchase agreement between H&P and 
MCTP could be the date of sale. H&P notes that regardless of which date 
is considered the date of sale, the sale dates for the merchandise in 
question were prior to the effective date of the order in this case, 
and thus should not be subject to the assessment of antidumping duties. 
H&P's submission dated November 4, 1996, at 3.
    H&P relies upon General Electric v. United States, 17 CIT 268 
(1993) (``General Electric'') in support of its argument that sales 
prior to the period of review are not subject to review (see page 3 of 
H&P's case brief) and ``should not be subject to the assessment of 
antidumping duties'' (see H&P submission, November 4, 1996, at 3). H&P 
states that the plaintiff in the General Electric case argued that 
since entries occurred during the POR, the Department was required to 
calculate a margin for the sales even if the sales

[[Page 48596]]

were outside the POR. H&P notes that in General Electric, the 
Department requested a remand since those sales identified by the 
plaintiff which occurred before the POR should have been excluded from 
the antidumping duty calculations. H&P further notes that the Court of 
International Trade (``CIT'') agreed with this Department position and 
ordered a remand to exclude those sales made prior to the POR from the 
calculation of the assessment rate. Thus, H&P concludes that the 
Department must exclude the subject sales from administrative review, 
and requests the Department to instruct U.S. Customs to liquidate the 
entries of this merchandise without the assessment of antidumping 
duties.

Department's Position

    Section 751(a)(2) of the Act specifies that, for the purposes of a 
review under section 751(a)(1)(B), the Department is to determine ``the 
normal value and export price (or constructed export price) of each 
entry of the subject merchandise, and * * * the dumping margin for each 
such entry.'' 19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added). Because H&P 
requested a review of NKK merchandise, and because there were entries 
of NKK merchandise during the POR, we requested that NKK submit a 
complete response to our antidumping questionnaire. NKK's failure to 
provide such a response to the questionnaire warrants the application 
of facts available in determining the appropriate margin. Pursuant to 
section 1675(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the margin determination shall be the 
basis for both the assessment of antidumping duties and the deposit of 
estimated antidumping duties. Thus, as discussed below, the assessment 
and cash deposit rates for NKK will be 44.20 percent, the highest rate 
from the petition.
    The circumstances in General Electric differed from those in this 
review. The issue before the CIT in General Electric was whether the 
Department properly calculated the amount of antidumping duties to be 
assessed on all entries during the POR. In General Electric, the 
Department reviewed sales rather than entries during the POR, and 
therefore could not derive duties on an entry by entry basis. As the 
Department stated in the final results of the administrative review 
being reviewed by the CIT, ``[s]ince units entered and units sold are 
almost identical in purchase price situations, we can collect a close 
approximation of the total dumping duty liability by calculating 
importer-specific per-unit amounts for sales during the period of 
review and applying those per-unit amounts to entries during the 
period.'' The CIT ruled that by examining the amount of dumping on 
sales during the POR, the Department would assess the correct amount of 
antidumping duties on all of General Electric's entries during the POR. 
While the parties in General Electric focused on the proper way to 
assess entries during the POR, there was no dispute over whether 
entries should have been assessed antidumping duties. As a result, 
General Electric does not support H&P's argument that entries that 
occurred during the POR should be excluded from administrative review 
if sales occurred outside the POR.
    In this review, H&P has not argued that the POR entries could not 
be linked to the sales, or that the Department intended to base its 
calculations only upon U.S. sales during the POR. Unlike General 
Electric, in this administrative review the Department never suggested 
that it would diverge from its preferred practice for reviewing EP 
(formerly purchase price) transactions. Thus, the Department requested 
that respondents respond fully to the Department's questionnaire, 
including reporting all entries of subject merchandise during the POR 
that were associated with U.S. sales. The September 19, 1996, 
questionnaire sent to NKK indicated, at page C-1, that the respondent 
should ``[r]eport each U.S. sale of merchandise entered for consumption 
during the POR, except: (1) for EP sales, if you do not know the entry 
dates, report each transaction involving merchandise shipped during the 
POR * * *'' (emphasis added).
    Furthermore, the Department's notice of opportunity to request a 
review of the antidumping order on OCTG stated that ``[i]f the 
Department does not receive, by August 31, 1996, a request for review 
of entries covered by an order or finding listed in this notice and for 
the period identified above, the Department will instruct the Customs 
Service to assess antidumping or countervailing duties on those entries 
at a rate equal to the cash deposit of (or bond for) estimated 
antidumping or countervailing duties required on those entries at the 
time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption and to 
continue to collect the cash deposit previously ordered'' (emphasis 
added). See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
61 FR 41768, 41771. Therefore, it was clear that all POR entries would 
be subject to the review process, regardless of whether the date of 
sale was within the POR. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review: Ferrosilicon From Brazil, 62 FR 43504, 
43510 (August 14, 1997).
    H&P indicated that a Department official had confirmed ``that a 
full review of sales made during the relevant period by NKK will result 
from the filing of [its] administrative review request dated August 28, 
1996.'' Page 1 of H&P's September 4, 1996, submission, at 1 (emphasis 
added). However, such a full review would have been consistent with 
normal practice, since typically EP sales made during the POR are 
associated with entries during the POR. In fact, in part because of 
NKK's failure to respond to the Department's questionnaire, it is not 
clear from the record of this review that NKK did not make U.S. sales 
during the POR, or that there were no additional POR entries into the 
United States of subject merchandise produced by NKK. Furthermore, 
H&P's admission that various dates may be considered the date of sale, 
the speculative nature of its description of stages of the sales 
process, and NKK's failure to provide a complete response to the 
Department's questionnaire casts further doubt upon any assertions 
regarding POR entries of subject merchandise produced by NKK.
    As indicated in our preliminary results, NKK's failure to respond 
to our questionnaire requires the Department to resort to the use of 
facts available. For these final results we have continued to assign to 
NKK the corroborated petition rate of 44.20 percent, which constitutes 
the highest rate for any company for the same class or kind of 
merchandise from the same country from this or any prior segment of the 
proceeding. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Japan; Notice of Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 62 FR 25889, 25890 (May 
12, 1997).

Final Results of Review

    As a result of this review we have determined that the following 
margin exists for entries of drill pipe during the period August 11, 
1995 through July 31, 1996, and for entries of OCTG other than drill 
pipe during the period February 2, 1995 through July 31, 1996:

                                  OCTG                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
               Producer/manufacturer/exporter                   margin  
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NKK........................................................        44.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall 
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate

[[Page 48597]]

entries. The Department shall issue appraisement instructions directly 
to the Customs Service.
    Furthermore, the following deposit requirements shall be effective 
upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all 
shipments of OCTG from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for NKK will 
be the rate for the firm as stated above; (2) for previously 
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 these reviews, 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 review, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be 44.20 percent, which was the 
``all others'' rate in the LTFV investigation.
    The deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
reviews.
    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 a reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with section 353.34(d) of the Department's 
regulations. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials 
or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure 
to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a 
sanctionable violation.
    These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with 
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and section 353.22 
of the Department's regulations.

    Dated: September 9, 1997.
Jeffrey P. Bialos,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-24470 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P