64564 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

final results for which the manufacturer

or exporter received an individual rate;

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered

in this review, the previous 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) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous reviews,

the cash deposit rate will be 4.80

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established

in the less-than-fair-value investigation.

See Pipe LTFV.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility 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 751(d) of the Act (19

U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)), 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32063 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–805]

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

and Tube From Mexico: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and Partial

Termination of Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

and partial termination of review.

SUMMARY: In response to requests from

two respondents, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is

conducting an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

from Mexico. This review covers two

manufacturers and exporters of the

subject merchandise. The period of

review (‘‘POR’’) is November 1, 1995,

through October 31, 1996.

With respect to Tuberia Nacional,

S.A. de C.V. (‘‘TUNA’’), this review has

now been terminated as a result of the

withdrawal request for administrative

review by TUNA, the interested party

that requested review of TUNA. We

preliminarily determine the dumping

margin for Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (‘‘Hylsa’’)

to be 7.90 percent during the POR.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit arguments in this

proceeding should also submit with

their arguments (1) A statement of the

issues, and (2) a brief summary of the

arguments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ilissa Kabak or Linda Ludwig,

Enforcement Group III—Office 8, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Room 7866, Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482–0182

(Kabak), or (202) 482–3833 (Ludwig).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

references to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 C.F.R. Part 353

(April 1, 1997). Where appropriate, we

have cited the Department’s new

regulations, codified at 19 C.F.R. Part

351 (62 Fed. Reg. 27296, May 19, 1997).

While not binding on this review, the

new regulations serve as a restatement

of the Department’s policies.

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

from Mexico on November 2, 1992 (57

FR 49453). The Department published a

notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order for the 1995/96

review period on November 4, 1996 (61

FR 56663). On November 27, 1996,

respondents Hylsa and TUNA requested

that the Department conduct an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

from Mexico. We initiated this review

on December 16, 1996. See 61 FR 66017

(December 16, 1996). On February 4,

1997, TUNA requested a withdrawal

from the proceeding.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations, the

Department may allow a party that

requests an administrative review to

withdraw such request not later than 90

days after the date of publication of the

notice of initiation of the administrative

review. TUNA’s request for withdrawal

was timely and there were no requests

for review from other interested parties.

Therefore, the Department is

terminating this review with respect to

TUNA. This notice is in accordance

with section 353.22(a)(5) of the

Department’s regulations (19 CFR

353.22(a)(5)).

Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act,

the Department may extend the

deadline for issuing a preliminary

determination in an administrative

review if it determines that it is not

practicable to complete the preliminary

review within the statutory time limit of

245 days. On June 16, 1997, the

Department published a notice of

extension of the time limit for the

preliminary results in this case to

December 2, 1997. See Extension of

Time Limit for Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, 62 FR 36488

(July 8, 1997).

The Department is conducting this

review in accordance with section

751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

The products covered by these orders

are circular welded non-alloy steel

pipes and tubes, of circular crosssection, not more than 406.4 millimeters

(16 inches) in outside diameter,

regardless of wall thickness, surface

finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or

end finish (plain end, beveled end,

threaded, or threaded and coupled).

These pipes and tubes are generally

known as standard pipes and tubes and

are intended for the low pressure

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,

and other liquids and gases in plumbing

and heating systems, air conditioning

units, automatic sprinkler systems, and

other related uses, and generally meet

ASTM A–53 specifications. Standard

pipe may also be used for light loadbearing applications, such as for fence

tubing, and as structural pipe tubing

used for framing and support members

for reconstruction or load-bearing

purposes in the construction,

shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment,

and related industries. Unfinished

conduit pipe is also included in these

orders.

All carbon steel pipes and tubes

within the physical description outlined

above are included within the scope of

these orders, except line pipe, oil

country tubular goods, boiler tubing,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices 64565

mechanical tubing, pipe and tube

hollows for redraws, finished

scaffolding, and finished conduit.

Standard pipe that is dual or triple

certified/stenciled that enters the U.S. as

line pipe of a kind used for oil or gas

pipelines is also not included in these

orders.

Imports of the products covered by

these orders are currently classifiable

under the following Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (HTS) subheadings:

7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25,

7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40,

7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and

7306.30.50.90.

Although the HTS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

scope of these proceedings is

dispositive.

The POR is November 1, 1995 through

October 31, 1996. This review covers

sales of circular welded non-alloy steel

pipe and tube by Hylsa.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent by using standard

verification procedures, including onsite inspection of the manufacturing

facilities of Hylsa, the examination of

relevant sales and financial records, and

selection of original documentation

containing relevant information. Our

verification results are outlined in the

verification reports, the public versions

of which are available at the Department

of Commerce, in the Central Records

Unit (CRU), Room B099.

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, we considered each circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

product produced by the respondents,

covered by the descriptions in the

‘‘Scope of the Review’’ section of this

notice, supra, and sold in the home

market during the POR, to be a foreign

like product for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales of circular welded non-alloy

steel pipe and tube. Where there were

no sales of identical merchandise in the

home market to compare to U.S. sales,

we compared U.S. sales to the next most

similar foreign like product on the basis

of the characteristics listed in Appendix

VI of the Department’s December 23,

1996, antidumping questionnaire. In

making the product comparisons, we

matched each foreign like product based

on the physical characteristics reported

by the respondent and verified by the

Department.

The Department’s practice is to use a

methodology which avoids distortions

due to high inflation in instances where

high inflation existed during the period

of review. See, e.g., Notice of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, Certain Welded

Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from

Turkey 62 Fed. Feg. 61629 (October 2,

1997). In this case, consistent with our

prior practice, we determined that high

inflation existed during the period of

review. See Letter to Shearman &

Sterling from the Department (May 7,

1997). In order to take into account the

rate of inflation in Mexico during the

POR, we compared each U.S. sale to

sales of the foreign like product in the

same month. Where there were no sales

of identical merchandise in the home

market to compare to U.S. sales within

the same month, we compared U.S.

sales to the next most similar foreign

like product which was sold in the same

month. See Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe and Tube from Mexico:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review 61 FR

68708 (December 30, 1996). See also

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

and Tube from Mexico: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review 62 FR 32014 (July 10, 1997) (in

which the Department continued to

compare foreign like products and

subject merchandise in this manner).

Fair-Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe by

Hylsa to the United States were made at

less than fair value, we compared the EP

to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Export

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of

this notice. In accordance with section

777A (d)(2) of the Act, we calculated

monthly weighted-average prices for NV

and compared these to individual U.S.

transactions.

Date of Sale

Hylsa reported the date of the invoice

as the date of sale for all home market

and U.S. sales. For the home market coexport rebate sales with two reported

invoice dates (original invoice issue

date and revised invoice issue date),

Hylsa reported the revised invoice date

as the date of sale.

Export Price

We used EP as defined in section

772(a) of the Act. We calculated EP

based on prices to unaffiliated

customers in the United States. Where

appropriate, we made deductions from

the starting price for foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling,

U.S. brokerage and handling and U.S.

customs duties.

Section 776 (a) (2) of the Act provides

that ‘‘if an interested party or any other

person—(A) withholds information that

has been requested by the administering

authority; (B) fails to provide such

information by the deadlines for the

submission of the information or in the

form and manner requested, subject to

subsections (c) (1) and (e) of section 782;

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding

under this title; or (D) provides such

information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782

(i), the administering authority * * *

shall, subject to section 782 (d), use the

facts otherwise available in reaching the

applicable determination under this

title.’’

In addition, section 776 (b) of the Act

provides that, if the Department finds

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information,’’ the Department may use

information that is adverse to the

interests of the party as the facts

otherwise available. The statute also

provides that such an adverse inference

may be based on secondary information,

including information drawn from the

petition.

In this case, the Department has

applied partial facts available for

various expenses and adjustments.

Based on our verification of Hylsa’s

sales responses, we rejected as

unverifiable additional foreign inland

freight, additional foreign brokerage fees

and additional U.S. brokerage fees.

Although information was provided to

the Department, and the Department

attempted to verify this information at

the verification of Hylsa (see Sales

Verification Report), the information

could not be verified as provided in

section 782(i) of the Act. By not

providing verifiable information for

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage

and U.S. brokerage expenses when such

information was available to Hylsa, we

have determined that Hylsa failed to

cooperate by not acting to the best of its

ability to comply with a request for

information. Consequently, the use of

adverse partial facts available under

section 776(b) of the Act is warranted.

We deducted the reported foreign

inland freight, which was paid by the

customer and included in the reported

gross unit price. Rather than use

reported additional foreign inland

freight, as facts available we further

deducted the highest calculated

differential between reported and actual

foreign inland freight charges incurred

for five sales reviewed at verification,

(see Analysis Memo). We deducted the

reported foreign and U.S. brokerage

charges, which were paid by the
64566 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

customer and included in the reported

gross unit price. Rather than use

reported additional foreign and U.S.

brokerage charges, as facts available we

further deducted the highest calculated

differential between reported and actual

foreign and U.S. brokerage charges

incurred for five sales reviewed at

verification (see Analysis Memo).

Hylsa acts as importer of record on its

U.S. sales and thereby pays all

antidumping duty deposits. During the

course of this proceeding, petitioners

requested that the Department examine

the issue of reimbursement where the

producer/exporter is the importer of

record. Section 353.26 of the

Department’s regulations states that

‘‘[i]n calculating the United States price,

the Secretary will deduct the amount of

any antidumping duty which the

producer or reseller: (i) [p]aid directly

on behalf of the importer; or (ii)

[r]eimbursed to the importer.’’ 19 CFR

353.26(a)(1). It has been our practice

that separate corporate entities must

exist as producer/reseller and importer

in order to invoke the regulation. In the

present case, the U.S. importer of

record, Hylsa, is also the same corporate

entity that produces and exports the

subject merchandise. In such a case,

there is no separate company or separate

U.S. subsidiary, wholly owned or

otherwise, that acts as the importer of

record. Rather, the importer and

exporter are one and the same corporate

entity. In this case, there can be no

payment made to, or on behalf of, the

importer within the meaning of the

regulation. In accordance with our

practice, the Department interprets its

reimbursement regulation as

inapplicable in this case. However, we

will consider this issue further for the

final results, and we invite comments

on this issue.

Normal Value

Based on a comparison of the

aggregate quantity of home-market and

U.S. sales, we determined that the

quantity of the foreign like product sold

in the exporting country was sufficient

to permit a proper comparison with the

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States, pursuant to section 773(a)

of the Act. Therefore, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act,

we based NV on the price at which the

foreign like product was first sold for

consumption in the home market, in the

usual commercial quantities and in the

ordinary course of trade, including sales

that benefitted from co-export rebates

and short-length discounts.

Sales to affiliated customers in the

home market which were determined

not to be at arm’s-length were excluded

from our analysis. To test whether these

sales were made at arm’s-length, we

compared the starting prices of sales of

comparison products to affiliated and

unaffiliated customers, net of all

movement charges, direct selling

expenses, discounts, and packing.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 353.45(a) and in

accordance with our practice, where the

prices to the affiliated party were on

average less than 99.5 percent of the

prices to unaffiliated parties, we

determined that the sales made to the

affiliated party were not at arm’s-length.

See Notice of Final Results and Partial

Recission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Roller Chain,

Other Than Bicycle, From Japan 62 FR

60472 (November 10, 1997). We

included those sales that passed the

arm’s length test in our analysis (see 19

CFR 353.45(a)).

Where appropriate, in accordance

with 773(a)(6)(A) of the Act, we

deducted credit expenses, warranties,

advertising, insurance, packing, and

certain discounts, and we added interest

revenue. The Department discovered

certain discrepancies and

inconsistencies with Hylsa’s freight data

which rendered the data unverifiable or

unreliable within the meaning of section

782(e) of the Act. At verification, the

Department examined additional inland

freight reported by Hylsa. Despite the

Department’s efforts, the data provided

by Hylsa could not be verified. In

accordance with section 782(e) of the

Act, we rejected as unverifiable

additional inland freight (see Sales

Verification Report). Therefore, we

denied adjustment for reported

additional inland freight. Furthermore,

due to discrepancies found as a result of

verification and in accordance with

section 782(e) of the Act, we disallowed

deduction of inland freight expenses

reported for co-export rebate sales made

during 1996. The Department also found

inconsistencies concerning the

allocation of both early payment

discounts and interest revenue for late

payments (see Sales Verification

Report). Therefore, consistent with

section 782 (e) of the Act, we denied

deductions from the reported price for

early payment discounts allocated to

sales to which interest revenue was also

allocated.

We increased NV by U.S. packing

costs in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(A) of the Act and decreased

NV by home market packing costs in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of

the Act. We made adjustments to NV for

differences in cost attributable to

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, pursuant to section

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

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

selling, general and administrative

(‘‘SG&A’’) expenses and profit. For EP,

the U.S. LOT is also the level of the

starting-price sale, which is usually

from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is

the level of the constructed sale from

the exporter to the importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at

a different LOT than EP or CEP, we

examine 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 comparison-market sales at the LOT

of the export transaction, we make an

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP

sales, if the NV level is more remote

from the factory than the CEP level and

there is no basis for determining

whether the difference in the levels

between NV and CEP affects price

comparability, we adjust NV under

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP

offset provision). 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).

In its questionnaire responses, Hylsa

stated that there were no differences in

its selling activities by customer

categories within each market. In order

to confirm independently the absence of

separate levels of trade within or

between the U.S. and home markets, we

examined Hylsa’s questionnaire

responses for indications that Hylsa’s

functions as a seller differed

qualitatively or quantitatively among

customer categories. Where possible, we

further examined whether each selling

function was performed on a substantial

portion of sales.

Hylsa sold to end-users in the U.S.

market. In the home market, Hylsa sold

to local distributors and end-users.

Hylsa performed essentially the same

selling functions for sales to all its

home-market customers, as well as to

U.S. customers. Thus, our analysis of

the questionnaire response leads us to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices 64567

conclude that sales within or between

each market are not made at different

levels of trade. Accordingly, we

preliminarily find that all sales in the

home market and the U.S. market were

made at the same level of trade.

Therefore, we have not made a level of

trade adjustment because all price

comparisons are at the same level of

trade and an adjustment pursuant to

section 773(a)(7)(A) is not appropriate.

Cost-of-Production Analysis

Petitioners alleged, on April 4, 1997,

that Hylsa sold circular welded nonalloy steel pipes and tubes in the home

market at prices below COP. Based on

these allegations, in accordance with

773(b) of the Act, the Department

determined, on May 6, 1997, that it had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that Hylsa had sold the subject

merchandise in the home market at

prices below the COP. See Letter to

Shearman and Sterling (May 7, 1997)

and Decision Memorandum (May 6,

1997). We therefore initiated a cost

investigation with regard to Hylsa in

order to determine whether the

respondent made home-market sales

during the POR at prices below their

COP within the meaning of section

773(b) of the Act. Before making any

fair-value comparisons, we conducted

the COP analysis described below.

A. Calculation of COP

We calculated the COP based on the

sum of Hylsa’s cost of materials and

fabrication for the foreign like product,

plus amounts for home-market selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(‘‘SG&A’’), and packing costs in

accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the

Act. Based on our verification of the

cost response submitted by Hylsa, we

adjusted the reported COP to reflect

certain adjustments to the cost of

manufacturing and general and

administrative expenses (see Analysis

Memo).

B. Test of Home-Market Prices

We used the respondent’s weightedaverage COP, as adjusted (see above), for

the period August 1, 1995, through

November 30, 1996. We compared the

weighted-average COP figures to homemarket sales of the foreign like product

as required under section 773(b) of the

Act. In determining whether to

disregard home-market sales made at

prices below 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 productspecific basis, we compared the COP to

the home-market prices (not including

VAT), less any applicable movement

charges, discounts, and rebates.

C. Results of COP Test

In accordance with section

773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent

of Hylsa’s sales of a given product were

at prices less than the COP, we do not

disregard any below-cost sales of that

product because we determine that the

below-cost sales were not made in

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20

percent or more of a Hylsa’s sales during

the POR were at prices less than the

COP, we determine such sales to have

been made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’

within an extended period of time in

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of

the Act, and not at prices which would

permit recovery of all costs within a

reasonable period of time, in accordance

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.

Therefore, we disregarded such belowcost sales of Hylsa. Where all

contemporaneous sales of a comparison

product were disregarded, we calculated

NV based on CV.

D. Calculation of CV

In accordance with section 773(e) of

the Act, we calculated CV based on the

sum of Hylsa’s cost of materials,

fabrication, SG&A, U.S. packing costs,

interest expenses as reported in the U.S.

sales database and profit. As noted

above, we recalculated Hylsa’s COM

and general and administrative

expenses based on our verification

results. In accordance with section

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A

and profit on the amounts incurred and

realized by the respondent in

connection with the production and sale

of the foreign like product in the

ordinary course of trade, for

consumption in the foreign country. For

selling expenses, we used the weightedaverage home market selling expenses.

Where we compared CV to EP, we

added the lesser of home market

commissions or U.S. indirect selling

expenses to CV.

Currency Conversion

For purposes of the preliminary

results, we made currency conversions

based on the official exchange rates in

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of

New York. Section 773A(a) of the Act

directs the Department to use a daily

exchange rate in order to convert foreign

currencies into U.S. dollars, unless the

daily rate involves a ‘‘fluctuation.’’ In

accordance with the Department’s

practice, we have determined as a

general matter that a fluctuation exists

when the daily exchange rate differs

from a benchmark by 2.25 percent. See

Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from Belgium:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR

48213 (citing Certain Stainless Steel

Wire Rods from France: Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 61 FR 8915

(March 6, 1996)). The benchmark is

defined as the rolling average of rates for

the past 40 business days. When we

determine a fluctuation exists, we

substitute the benchmark for the daily

rate.

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following weighted-average dumping

margin exists:

Circular welded non-alloy steel pipes

and tubes

Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter ............ Hylsa

Weighted-Average Margin ....................... 7.90%

Parties to this proceeding may request

disclosure within five days of

publication of this notice. Any

interested party may request a hearing

within 10 days of publication. 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. 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 of this notice. The

Department will publish a notice of the

final results of the administrative

review, including its analysis of issues

raised in any written comments or at a

hearing, not later than 120 days after the

date of publication of this notice.

The following deposit requirements

will be effective upon publication of the

final results of this antidumping duty

review for all shipments of circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe from

Mexico, entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the publication date, as provided by

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

cash deposit rate for the reviewed

company will be that established in the

final results of review; (2) for exporters

not covered in this review, but covered

in the LTFV investigation or previous

review, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

from the LTFV investigation or the most

recent previous review; (3) if the

exporter is not a firm covered in this

review, a previous review, or the
64568 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Notices

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; (4) the cash deposit

rate for all other manufacturers or

exporters will continue to be 36.62

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate in the

LTFV investigation. These

requirements, when imposed, shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

review.

We will calculate importer-specific

duty assessment rates as a per ton unit

value for EP sales. To calculate the per

ton unit value for assessment, we

summed the margins on U.S. sales with

positive margins, and then divided this

sum by the total entered tonnage of all

U.S. sales.

This notice serves as a preliminary

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 administrative review and notice

are published in accordance with

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

353.22.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–32064 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C–412–811]

Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth

Carbon Steel Products From the

United Kingdom; Preliminary Results

of Countervailing Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting an administrative review

of the countervailing duty order on

certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth

carbon steel products from the United

Kingdom. The period covered by this

administrative review is January 1, 1996

through December 31, 1996. For

information on the net subsidy for each

reviewed company, as well for all nonreviewed companies, please see the

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section

of this notice. If the final results remain

the same as these preliminary results of

administrative review, we will instruct

the U.S. Customs Service to assess

countervailing duties as indicated in the

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section

of this notice. Interested parties are

invited to comment on these

preliminary results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Cassel, Suzanne King, or

Dana Mermelstein, Office of CVD/AD

Enforcement VI, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 22, 1993, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

in the Federal Register (58 FR 15327)

the countervailing duty order on certain

hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel

products from the United Kingdom. On

March 7, 1997, the Department

published a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to

Request an Administrative Review’’ (62

FR 10521) of this countervailing duty

order. We received a timely request for

review from Inland Steel Bar Co., an

interested party to this proceeding. We

initiated the review, covering the period

January 1, 1996, through December 31,

1996, on April 24, 1997 (62 FR 19988).

In accordance with 19 CFR 355.22(a),

this review covers only those producers

or exporters for which a review was

specifically requested. Accordingly, this

review covers British Steel Engineering

Steels Holdings, British Steel

Engineering Steels Limited, and British

Steel plc.

Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930,

as amended by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA) effective

January 1, 1995 (the Act). The

Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751(a) of the Act.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

hot-rolled bars and rods of non-alloy or

other alloy steel, whether or not

descaled, containing by weight 0.03

percent or more of lead or 0.05 percent

or more of bismuth, in coils or cut

lengths, and in numerous shapes and

sizes. Excluded from the scope of this

review are other alloy steels (as defined

by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States (HTSUS) Chapter 72,

note 1(f)), except steels classified as

other alloy steels by reason of

containing by weight 0.4 percent or

more of lead or 0.1 percent or more of

bismuth, tellarium, or selenium. Also

excluded are semi-finished steels and

flat-rolled products. Most of the

products covered in this review are

provided for under subheadings

7213.20.00.00 and 7214.30.00.00 of the

HTSUS. Small quantities of these

products may also enter the United

States under the following HTSUS

subheadings: 7213.31.30.00, 60.00;

7213.39.00.30, 00.60, 00.90;

7214.40.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.50.00.10, 00.30, 00.50;

7214.60.00.10, 00.30, 00.50; and

7228.30.80. Although the HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and for Customs purposes,

our written description of the scope of

this proceeding is dispositive.

Change in Ownership

(I) Background

On March 21, 1995, British Steel plc

(BS plc) acquired all of Guest, Keen &

Nettlefolds’ (GKN) shares in United

Engineering Steels (UES), the company

which produced and exported the

subject merchandise to the United

States during the original investigation.

Thus, UES became a wholly-owned

subsidiary of BS plc and was renamed

British Steel Engineering Steels (BSES).

Prior to this change in ownership,

UES was a joint venture company

formed in 1986 by British Steel

Corporation (BSC), a government-owned

company, and GKN. In return for shares

in UES, BSC contributed a major portion

of its Special Steels Business, the

productive unit which produced the

subject merchandise. GKN contributed

its Brymbo Steel Works and its forging

business to the joint venture. BSC was

privatized in 1988 and now bears the

name BS plc.

In the investigation of this case, the

Department found that BSC had

received a number of nonrecurring

subsidies prior to the 1986 transfer of its

Special Steels Business to UES. See

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Lead

and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products

From the United Kingdom, 58 FR 6237,

6243 (January 27, 1993) (Lead Bar).