Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5587

1The petitioners in this investigation are Gulf

States Tube, a division of Vision Metals, Inc.;

Koppel Steel Corporation; Sharon Tube

Corporation; USS/Kobe Steel Corporation; United

Steel Workers of America; and U.S. Steel Group, a

unit of USX Corporation, hereinafter referred to as

Petitioners.

exporters without the discipline of the

order.

Final Results of Review

As a result of the review, the

Department finds that revocation of the

antidumping duty order would likely

lead to continuation or recurrence of

dumping at the margins listed below:

Manufacturer/exporter

Margin of

dumping

(percent)

Salmonar A/S ........................... 18.39

Sea Start International .............. 24.61

Kinn Salmon A/S (formerly,

Skaarfish) .............................. 15.65

Fremstad Group (A/S) .............. 21.51

Domstein and Co ...................... 31.81

Saga A/S .................................. 26.55

Chr. Bjelland ............................. 19.96

Hallvard Leroy (A/S) ................. 31.81

All others ................................... 23.80

This notice serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)

of their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.305 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 five-year (‘‘sunset’’) reviews

and notice are in accordance with

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

Act.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2591 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–827]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe From Mexico

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell Morris or John R. Brinkmann, at

(202) 482–1775 or (202) 482–4126,

respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement II,

Office VI, Group II, Import

Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all citations to the

Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations refer to the

regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351

(April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

certain large diameter carbon and alloy

seamless standard, line, and pressure

pipe (seamless pipe) from Mexico are

being sold, or are likely to be sold, in

the United States at less than fair value

(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of

the Act. The estimated margins of sales

at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of

Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

This investigation was initiated on

July 20, 1999.1 See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigations:

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Japan and Mexico

and Certain Small Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from the Czech Republic,

Japan, the Republic of South Africa and

Romania, 64 FR 40825 (July 28, 1999)

(Initiation Notice). Since the initiation

of the investigation, the following

events occurred:

On August 12, 1999, the Department

issued its antidumping questionnaire to

Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A.

(TAMSA), the sole Mexican producer of

the subject merchandise.

On August 23, 1999, the United States

International Trade Commission (ITC)

preliminarily determined that there is a

reasonable indication that imports of the

products subject to each of these

antidumping investigations are

materially injuring the U.S. industry.

See Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe

from the Czech Republic, Japan, Mexico,

Romania, and South Africa, 64 FR

46953 (August 27, 1999).

We issued supplemental

questionnaires where appropriate.

Responses to those supplemental

questionnaires were timely filed

between November 1, 1999 and

November 16, 1999, and we have

incorporated the information provided

in those responses into this preliminary

determination.

On November 17, 1999, the

Department concluded, consistent with

section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, that the

Mexican investigation of large diameter

pipe is extraordinarily complicated, and

that additional time was necessary to

issue the preliminary determination.

Consequently, we extended the deadline

for the preliminary determination to

January 26, 2000. See Notice of

Postponement of Preliminary

Antidumping Duty Determinations:

Certain Small and Large Diameter

Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard,

Line and Pressure Pipe From the Czech

Republic, Romania and Mexico, 64 FR

66168 (November 24, 1999).

Although the deadline for this

determination was originally January

26, 2000, due to the Federal

Government shutdown on January 25

and 26, 2000, resulting from inclement

weather, the time frame for issuing this

determination has been extended by two

days.

Postponement of Final Determination

and Extension of Provisional Measures

Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides

that a final determination may be

postponed until not later than 135 days

after the date of the publication of the

preliminary determination if, in the

event of an affirmative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by exporters who

account for a significant proportion of

exports of the subject merchandise, or in

the event of a negative preliminary

determination, a request for such

postponement is made by the

petitioners. The Department’s

regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2),

require that requests by respondents for

postponement of a final determination

be accompanied by a request for

extension of provisional measures from

a four-month period to not more than

six months.

On January 14, 2000, TAMSA

requested that, in the event of an

affirmative preliminary determination

in this investigation, the Department

postpone its final determination until

not later than 135 days after the date of

the publication of the affirmative

5588 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

2On September 3, 1999, the petitioners requested

that the scope of the investigations be amended to

exclude certain products made to the A–335

specification. This change is reflected in the current

scope.

preliminary determination in the

Federal Register. TAMSA also included

a request to extend the provisional

measures to not more than six months.

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.210(b), because (1) our

determination is affirmative; (2) the

requesting exporter accounts for a

significant portion of exports of the

subject merchandise; and (3) no

compelling reason for denial exists, we

are granting the respondent’s request

and are postponing the final

determination until not later than 135

days after the date of the publication of

the preliminary determination.

Suspension of liquidation will be

extended accordingly.

Period of Investigation

The period of this investigation (POI)

comprises TAMSA’s four most recent

fiscal quarters prior to the filing of the

petition, (i.e., April 1, 1998, through

March 31, 1999).

Scope of Investigation 2

For purposes of this investigation, the

products covered are large diameter

seamless carbon and alloy (other than

stainless) steel standard, line, and

pressure pipes produced, or equivalent,

to the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) A–53, ASTM A–106,

ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334, ASTM A–

335 (grades P1, P2, P11, P12, P21 and

P22 only), ASTM A–589, ASTM A–795,

and the American Petroleum Institute

(API) 5L specifications and meeting the

physical parameters described below,

regardless of application. The scope of

this investigation also includes all

products used in standard, line, or

pressure pipe applications and meeting

the physical parameters described

below, regardless of specification.

Specifically included within the scope

of this investigation are seamless pipes

greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up

to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm)

in outside diameter, regardless of wallthickness, manufacturing process (hot

finished or cold-drawn), end finish

(plain end, beveled end, upset end,

threaded, or threaded and coupled), or

surface finish.

The seamless pipes subject to this

investigation are currently classifiable

under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30,

7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60,

7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50,

7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40,

7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48,

7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56,

7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68,

7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60,

7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30,

7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40,

7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50,

7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60,

7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS).

Specifications, Characteristics, and

Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is

used primarily for line applications

such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or

utility distribution systems. Seamless

pressure pipes are intended for the

conveyance of water, steam,

petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products,

natural gas and other liquids and gasses

in industrial piping systems. They may

carry these substances at elevated

pressures and temperatures and may be

subject to the application of external

heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure

pipe meeting the ASTM A–106 standard

may be used in temperatures of up to

1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) code stress levels.

Alloy pipes made to ASTM A–335

standard must be used if temperatures

and stress levels exceed those allowed

for ASTM A–106. Seamless pressure

pipes sold in the United States are

commonly produced to the ASTM A–

106 standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most

commonly produced to the ASTM A–53

specification and generally are not

intended for high temperature service.

They are intended for the low

temperature and pressure conveyance of

water, steam, natural gas, air and other

liquids and gasses in plumbing and

heating systems, air conditioning units,

automatic sprinkler systems, and other

related uses. Standard pipes (depending

on type and code) may carry liquids at

elevated temperatures but must not

exceed relevant ASME code

requirements. If exceptionally low

temperature uses or conditions are

anticipated, standard pipe may be

manufactured to ASTM A–333 or ASTM

A–334 specifications.

Seamless line pipes are intended for

the conveyance of oil and natural gas or

other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line

pipes are produced to the API 5L

specification.

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A–

589) and seamless galvanized pipe for

fire protection uses (ASTM A–795) are

used for the conveyance of water.

Seamless pipes are commonly

produced and certified to meet ASTM

A–106, ASTM A–53, API 5L–B, and API

5L–X42 specifications. To avoid

maintaining separate production runs

and separate inventories, manufacturers

typically triple or quadruple certify the

pipes by meeting the metallurgical

requirements and performing the

required tests pursuant to the respective

specifications. Since distributors sell the

vast majority of this product, they can

thereby maintain a single inventory to

service all customers.

The primary application of ASTM A–

106 pressure pipes and triple or

quadruple certified pipes in large

diameters is for use as oil and gas

distribution lines for commercial

applications. A more minor application

for large diameter seamless pipes is for

use in pressure piping systems by

refineries, petrochemical plants, and

chemical plants, as well as in power

generation plants and in some oil field

uses (on shore and off shore) such as for

separator lines, gathering lines and

metering runs. These applications

constitute the majority of the market for

the subject seamless pipes. However,

ASTM A–106 pipes may be used in

some boiler applications.

The scope of this investigation

includes all seamless pipe meeting the

physical parameters described above

and produced to one of the

specifications listed above, regardless of

application, and whether or not also

certified to a non-covered specification.

Standard, line, and pressure

applications and the above-listed

specifications are defining

characteristics of the scope of this

investigation. Therefore, seamless pipes

meeting the physical description above,

but not produced to the ASTM A–53,

ASTM A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–

334, ASTM A–335 (grades P1, P2, P11,

P12, P21 and P22 only), ASTM A–589,

ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications

shall be covered if used in a standard,

line, or pressure application.

For example, there are certain other

ASTM specifications of pipe which,

because of overlapping characteristics,

could potentially be used in ASTM A–

106 applications. These specifications

generally include ASTM A–161, ASTM

A–192, ASTM A–210, ASTM A–252,

ASTM A–501, ASTM A–523, ASTM A–

524, and ASTM A–618. When such

pipes are used in a standard, line, or

pressure pipe application, such

products are covered by the scope of

this investigation.

Specifically excluded from the scope

of this investigation are boiler tubing

and mechanical tubing, if such products

are not produced to ASTM A–53, ASTM

A–106, ASTM A–333, ASTM A–334,

ASTM A–335 (grades P1, P2, P11, P12,

P21 and P22 only), ASTM A–589,

ASTM A–795, and API 5L specifications

and are not used in standard, line, or

pressure pipe applications. In addition,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5589

finished and unfinished oil country

tubular goods (OCTG) are excluded from

the scope of this investigation, if

covered by the scope of another

antidumping duty order from the same

country. If not covered by such an

OCTG order, finished and unfinished

OCTG are included in this scope when

used in standard, line or pressure

applications.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are

provided for convenience and customs

purposes, our written description of the

merchandise under investigation is

dispositive.

Class or Kind

From August through November 1999,

the Department received submissions

from importers, respondents, and

consumers in the companion

investigations involving small and large

diameter seamless pipe from Japan,

requesting that the subject merchandise

be considered more than one class or

kind. Specifically, those parties

requested that the Department

subdivide each of these investigations

into the following separate classes or

kinds of merchandise: (1) Commodity

grade carbon seamless standard, line

and pressure pipe; (2) alloy seamless

pipe; and (3) high-strength seamless line

pipe. On November 8, 1999, the

petitioners rebutted these arguments.

We have preliminarily determined that

there is a single class or kind of

merchandise for small diameter pipe

and another distinct single class or kind

of merchandise for large diameter pipe.

For further discussion on this topic,

including the comments received, see

the Notice of Preliminary

Determinations 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, 64 FR 69721

(December 14, 1999).

Product Comparisons

In accordance with section 771(16) of

the Act, all products produced by

TAMSA covered by the description in

the Scope of Investigation section,

above, and sold in Mexico during the

POI, are considered to be foreign like

products for purposes of determining

appropriate product comparisons to

U.S. sales. We have relied on six criteria

to match U.S. sales of subject

merchandise to comparison-market

sales of the foreign like product:

specification/grade, manufacturing

process, outside diameter, wall

thickness, surface finish, and end-finish.

These characteristics have been

weighted by the Department, where

appropriate. 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 as listed above.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

seamless pipe products from Mexico

were made in the United States at LTFV,

we compared the constructed export

price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as

described in the Constructed Export

Price and Normal Value sections of this

notice, below. In accordance with

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

calculated weighted-average CEPs for

comparison to weighted-average NVs.

Constructed Export Price

In accordance with section 772 of the

Act, we calculated a CEP for each sale.

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as

the price at which the subject

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be

sold) in the United States before or after

the date of importation by or for the

account of the producer or exporter of

such merchandise or by a seller

affiliated with the producer or exporter,

to a purchaser not affiliated with the

producer or exporter, as adjusted.

When sales are made prior to

importation through an affiliated U.S.

sales agent to an unaffiliated customer

in the United States, it is the

Department’s practice to examine

several criteria in order to determine

whether or not the sales are CEP or

export price (EP) sales. Those criteria

are: (1) Whether the merchandise was

shipped directly from the manufacturer

to the unaffiliated U.S. customer; (2)

whether this was the customary

commercial channel between the parties

involved; and (3) whether the function

of the U.S. selling agent was limited to

that of a ‘‘processor of sales-related

documentation’’ and a

‘‘communications link’’ between the

exporter and the unaffiliated U.S. buyer.

See, e.g., Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware

from Mexico: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 64 FR 26934, 26941 (May 18,

1999); and Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Carbon Steel Flat Products and Certain

Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From

Canada: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Reviews (Canadian

Steel), 63 FR 12725, 12738 (March 16,

1998). In the Canadian Steel case, the

Department clarified its interpretation of

the third prong of this test, as follows:

Where the factors indicate that the

activities of the U.S. affiliate are ancillary to

the sale (e.g., arranging transportation or

customs clearance, invoicing), we treat the

transactions as EP sales. Where the U.S.

affiliate has more than an incidental

involvement in making sales (e.g., solicits

sales, negotiates contracts or prices) or

providing customer support, we treat the

transactions as CEP sales.

Canadian Steel, 63 FR at 12738.

For sales of seamless pipe products

during the POI, TAMSA utilizes the

services of two affiliated selling agents

in the United States, Siderca

Corporation (Siderca) and another

affiliate, hereinafter referred to as

Company A (the name of Company A is

business proprietary information).

TAMSA reported, as EP transactions, its

seamless pipe sales for which Siderca

and Company A served as the importers

of record and which were shipped

directly from Mexico to the unaffiliated

U.S. customer. Conversely, TAMSA

reported as CEP transactions the subject

merchandise that was stored in

Company A’s warehouse and later sold

out of Company A’s inventory. After

careful examination of the record, the

Department has preliminarily

determined that both selling agents,

Siderca and Company A, act as more

than simply a ‘‘processor of sales-related

documentation’’ or ‘‘a communication

link.’’ As a result of our analysis, we are

reclassifying TAMSA’s reported EP

sales as CEP sales, as defined in section

772(b) of the Act. Specifically, both

Siderca and Company A solicit sales,

negotiate the price, obtain customer

approval, prepare sales documentation (i.e.,

invoices), receive payment and forward

payment to TAMSA. For a further

discussion, see Memorandum Whether

to Reclassify Certain EP Sales by Tubos

de Acero de Mexico, S.A in the U.S.

Market as CEP Sales, dated January 28,

2000, public version, on file in the

Central Record Unit (CRU), Room B–

099, of the Main Commerce Building.

We based CEP on the packed, costinsurance-freight (CIF), ex-factory, freeon-board (FOB), or delivered prices to

the first unaffiliated customer in the

United States, as appropriate. We

reduced these prices for discounts and

rebates, where appropriate.

In accordance with section 772(c)(2)

of the Act, we made deductions, where

appropriate, for movement expenses

including inland freight from the plant

or warehouse to the port of exportation,

foreign brokerage, handling and loading

charges, international freight, marine

insurance, U.S. duties and U.S. inland

freight expenses (from port to the

customer).

In accordance with section 772(d)(1)

of the Act, where appropriate, we

deducted from the starting price those

5590 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

selling expenses that related to

economic activity in the United States,

including direct selling expenses (credit

costs, warehousing, and warranties),

indirect selling expenses and indirect

selling expenses of the affiliated selling

agents. We also deducted from CEP an

amount for profit in accordance with

sections 772(d)(3) and (f) of the Act. See

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum,

dated January 28, 2000, public version

on file in the CRU.

Normal Value

A. Selection of Comparison Markets

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs

that NV be based on the price at which

the foreign like product is sold in the

home market, provided that the

merchandise is sold in sufficient

quantities, and that there is no

particular market situation that prevents

a proper comparison with the U.S.

price. The statute contemplates that

quantities normally will be considered

insufficient if they are less than five

percent of the aggregate quantity of sales

of the subject merchandise to the United

States.

TAMSA had a viable home market for

seamless pipe products, and reported

home market sales data for purposes of

the calculation of NV.

In deriving NV, we made certain

adjustments to price as detailed in the

Calculation of Normal Value Based on

Home-Market Prices section of this

notice, below.

B. Arm’s Length Test

Sales to affiliated customers for

consumption 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 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 351.403 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, 60478 (November 10, 1997) and

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties: Final Rule (Antidumping

Duties), 62 FR 27295, 27355–56 (May

19, 1997). We included in our NV

calculations those sales to affiliated

customers that passed the arm’s-length

test in our analysis. See 19 CFR 351.403;

Antidumping Duties, 62 FR at 27355–

56.

C. Level of Trade

As set forth in section 773(a)(1)(B)(i)

of the Act and in the Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316,

at 829–831 (1994), to the extent

practicable, the Department will

calculate NV based on sales at the same

level of trade (LOT) as the U.S. sales.

To determine whether comparison

market sales were at different LOTs we

examined stages in the marketing

process and selling functions along the

chain of distribution between the

producer and the unaffiliated (or arm’s

length) customers. If the comparisonmarket sales were at a different LOT and

the differences affected 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 made a

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act, where

appropriate.

In accordance with the Act, we

examined the chain of distribution and

the selling activities associated with

sales reported by TAMSA to its two

customer categories in the home market.

TAMSA reported three distinct

channels of distribution in the home

market: (1) Sales to end users; (2) sales

to distributors; and (3) sales to one

specific end user which received

additional services pursuant to a just-intime agreement. We found that the

channels of distribution through the

distributors and the first referenced end

users differed significantly from the

channel to the end user that received

additional services as enumerated in the

just-in-time agreement. Based on our

overall analysis, we found that the home

market sales constituted two LOTs: (1)

Distributors and end users (LOT 1), and

(2) the end user that received additional

services pursuant to the just-in-time

agreement (LOT 2).

We examined the sales from TAMSA

to the two affiliated resellers (i.e., at the

constructed, or CEP LOT) and found

only one LOT in the U.S. market. This

CEP LOT was comparable to the home

market LOT 1. For the vast majority of

comparisons, we were able to determine

NV based on sales of identical

merchandise made at the same LOT as

the U.S. CEP sales. Accordingly,

because we compared U.S. to home

market sales at the same LOT, no LOT

adjustment was warranted under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Where there

were no identical comparison market

sales at the same LOT as the U.S. CEP

sales, we compared U.S. sales to

identical merchandise sold at the other

LOT in the home market and made a

LOT adjustment under section

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For a detailed

description of our LOT analysis and

adjustment methodology for these

preliminary results, see the January 28,

2000, Antidumping Investigation of

Certain Large Diameter Carbon and

Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and

Pressure Pipe from Mexico: Preliminary

Level of Trade Findings Memorandum,

on file in the CRU.

We note that the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) has held that

the Department’s practice of

determining LOTs for CEP transactions

after CEP deductions is an

impermissible interpretation of section

772(d) of the Act. See Borden, Inc., v.

United States, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1221,

1241–42 (CIT 1998) (Borden). The

Department believes, however, that its

practice is in full compliance with the

statute. On June 4, 1999, the CIT entered

final judgment in Borden on the LOT

issue. See Borden, Inc., v. United States,

Court No. 96–08–01970, Slip Op. 99–50

(CIT June 4, 1999). The government has

filed an appeal of Borden which is

pending before the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Consequently, the Department has

continued to follow its normal practice

of adjusting CEP under section 772(d)

prior to starting a LOT analysis, as

articulated in the Department’s

regulations at § 351.412.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based

on Home-Market Prices

We calculated NV based on ex-factory

or delivered prices. Pursuant to 19 CFR

351.401(c), we adjusted the gross unit

price for discounts and rebates to arrive

at the ‘‘starting price’’ for NV. We made

deductions from the starting price for

inland freight, warehousing, and inland

insurance. In addition, we made

circumstance-of-sale (COS) adjustments

for direct expenses, where appropriate,

in accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. These

included imputed credit expenses,

warranty expenses, commissions,

interest revenue, and performance bond

fees. In accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act, we

deducted home market packing costs

and added U.S. packing costs. See

Preliminary Calculation Memorandum,

dated January 28, 2000, public version

on file in the CRU.

In accordance with § 351.410(e) of the

Department’s regulations, where

commissions are incurred in one market

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5591

(in this case the home market), but not

in the other, we make an allowance for

indirect selling expenses in the other

market up to the amount of the

commissions granted. In this case,

because commissions were paid in the

home market, but not in the United

States, and thus were deducted from the

home market price, we made an

adjustment for U.S. indirect selling

expenses incurred in Mexico which

were associated with sales of the subject

merchandise. We made such an

adjustment by adding the U.S. indirect

selling expenses, up to the amount of

the home market commissions, to home

market price rather than subtracting

them from the CEP.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions into

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section

773(A) of the Act, based on the

exchange rates in effect on the dates of

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal

Reserve Bank.

Verification

In accordance with section 782(i) of

the Act, we intend to verify all

information relied upon in making our

final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d) of

the Act, we are directing Customs to

suspend liquidation of all entries of

large diameter seamless pipe products

from Mexico, that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. We are also instructing

Customs to require a cash deposit or the

posting of a bond equal to the weightedaverage amount by which the NV

exceeds the CEP, as indicated in the

chart below. These instructions

suspending liquidation will remain in

effect until further notice. The

weighted-average dumping margins are

provided below.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

TAMSA ..................................... 4.60

All others ................................... 4.60

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final antidumping

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether the imports

covered by this determination are

materially injuring, or threaten material

injury to, the United States industry.

The deadline for that ITC determination

would be the later of 120 days after the

date of this preliminary determination

or 45 days after the date of our final

determination.

Public Comment

Case briefs for this investigation must

be submitted no later than March 16,

2000. Rebuttal briefs must be filed

within five days after the deadline for

submission of case briefs. A list of

authorities used, a table of contents, and

an executive summary of issues should

accompany any briefs submitted to the

Department. Executive summaries

should be limited to five pages total,

including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs.

If this investigation proceeds

normally, we will make our final

determination no later than 135 days

after the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

This determination is issued and

published pursuant to sections 733(f)

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

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Holly A. Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2580 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–475–818, A–489–805]

Certain Pasta From Italy and Turkey:

Extension of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jarrod Goldfeder at (202) 482–2305,

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI,

Group II, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Ave, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

Time Limits

Statutory Time Limits

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires

the Department to issue the preliminary

results within 245 days after the last day

of the anniversary month of an order/

finding for which a review is requested

and the final results within 120 days

after the date on which the preliminary

results are published. However, if it is

not practicable to complete the review

within the time period, section

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the

Department to extend the time limit for

the preliminary results to a maximum of

365 days and for the final results to 180

days (or 300 days if the Department

does not extend the time limit for the

preliminary results) from the date of the

publication of the preliminary results.

Background

On August 30, 1999, the Department

published a notice of initiation of the

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty orders on certain

pasta from Italy and Turkey, covering

the period July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999

(64 FR 47167). The preliminary results

are currently due no later than April 3,

2000.

Extension of Preliminary Results of

Reviews

We determine that it is not practicable

to complete the preliminary results of

these reviews within the original time

limits. Therefore, we are extending the

time limits for completion of the

preliminary results until no later than

June 30, 2000. See Decision

Memorandum from John Brinkmann to

Holly A. Kuga, dated January 31, 2000,

which is on file in the Central Records