6136 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

alloy as the U.S. products. We used the

same gauge and width groupings and

the same model-match methodology in

this review as in the last completed

administrative review. See BS&S 1997.

Also, see Analysis Memo.

We based NV on the price at which

the foreign like product is first sold for

consumption in the exporting country,

in the usual commercial quantities and

in the ordinary course of trade, and at

the same LOT as the export price, as

defined by section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the

Act.

We reduced NV for warranty and

home market credit expenses, and

increased NV for U.S. credit expenses in

accordance with section

773(a)(6)(C)(iii), due to differences in

circumstances of sale. We reduced NV

for home market movement expenses, in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii);

and for packing costs incurred in the

home market, in accordance with

section 773(a)(6)(B)(i); and increased NV

to account for U.S. packing expenses in

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A).

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of our comparison of EP

to NV, we preliminarily determine that

a 3.33 percent dumping margin exists

for Wolverine for the period January 1,

1998, through December 31, 1998.

Assessment

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. In accordance with 19 CFR

351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/

importer-specific assessment rates. We

divided the total dumping margins for

the reviewed sales by the total entered

value of those reviewed sales for each

importer. We will direct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess the resulting

percentage margin against the entered

customs values for the subject

merchandise on each of that importer’s

entries under the relevant order during

the review period.

Cash Deposit

The following cash deposit

requirements will be effective upon

publication of the final results of this

administrative review for all shipments

of the subject merchandise 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withdrawn from warehouse, for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

rate for Wolverine, the sole respondent

covered by this review, will be the rate

established in the final results of this

administrative review; (2) for previously

reviewed or 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, a prior review, or the

original LTFV investigations, 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

manufacturer nor the exporter is a firm

covered in this or any previous review,

the cash deposit rate will continue to be

8.10 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

established in the LTFV investigations.

These deposit requirements, when

imposed, shall remain in effect until

publication of the final results of the

next administrative reviews.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the

Department will disclose to parties to

the proceeding any calculations

performed in connection with these

preliminary results within five days

after the publication of this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested

parties may submit written comments in

response to these preliminary results.

Case briefs must be submitted within 30

days after the date of publication of this

notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to

arguments raised in case briefs, must be

submitted no later than five days after

the time limit for filing case briefs.

Parties who submit argument in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

the argument: (1) A statement of the

issue, and (2) a brief summary of the

argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must

be served on interested parties in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).

Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310,

within 30 days of the date of publication

of this notice, interested parties may

request a public hearing on arguments

to be raised in the case and rebuttal

briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies

otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will

be held two days after the date for

submission of rebuttal briefs, that is,

thirty-seven days after the date of

publication of these preliminary results.

The Department will publish the final

results of this administrative review,

including the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief

or at a hearing not later than 120 days

after the date of publication of these

preliminary results.

Notification to Parties

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: January 31, 2000.

Holly Kuga,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2851 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–805]

Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe From Mexico; Final Results

of Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

administrative reviews.

SUMMARY: On June 25, 1999, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) published in the Federal

Register the preliminary results of the

1992–1993 and 1993–1994

administrative reviews of the

antidumping duty order on certain

circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from Mexico (64 FR 34190). These

reviews cover one manufacturer/

exporter of the subject merchandise

during the periods of review (POR) for

April 28, 1992 through October 31,

1993, (the 92/93 POR) and November 1,

1993 through October 31, 1994 (the 93/

94 POR).

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. Based upon our

analysis of the comments received we

have not changed the results from those

presented in our preliminary results for

the 92/93 administrative review.

However, we have changed the results

for the 93/94 administrative review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Drury at (202) 482–0195 or Linda

Ludwig at (202) 482–3833,

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty

Enforcement Group III, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6137

amended (the Tariff Act) and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 92/93

POR on November 3, 1993 (58 FR

58682). On November 19, 1993,

respondent Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (Hylsa)

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on circular

welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube

from Mexico. On November 30, 1993,

respondent Tuberia Nacional S.A. de

C.V. (TUNA) requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of this order. We initiated this

review on January 18, 1994 (59 FR

2593).

The Department published a notice of

Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review of the

antidumping duty order for the 93/94

POR on November 10, 1994 (59 FR

56034). On November 29, 1994,

respondent Hylsa requested that the

Department conduct an administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

and tube from Mexico. On November

30, 1994, respondent Western American

Manufacturing, Inc. (Western American)

requested that the Department conduct

an administrative review of this order.

We initiated this review on December

15, 1994. (59 FR 64650).

We published the preliminary results

of these reviews, and termination of

reviews with respect to TUNA and

Western American, in the Federal

Register on June 25, 1999 (Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube

From Mexico: Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Reviews; and Partial Revocation, 64 FR

34190 (Preliminary Results)). Hylsa filed

a case brief on July 26, 1999; we did not

receive any other case or rebuttal

comments.

The Department has now completed

these reviews in accordance with

section 751 of the Tariff Act.

Scope of the Review

The review of circular welded nonalloy steel pipe and tube covers

products of circular cross-section, 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). Those pipes and

tubes are generally known as standard

pipe, though they may also be called

structural or mechanical tubing in

certain applications. Standard pipes and

tubes are intended for the low pressure

conveyance of water, steam, natural gas,

air and other liquids and gases in

plumbing and heating systems, air

conditioning units, automatic sprinkler

systems, and other related uses.

Standard pipe may also be used for light

load-bearing and mechanical

applications, such as for fence tubing,

and for protection of electrical wiring,

such as conduit shells.

The scope is not limited to standard

pipe and fence tubing, or those types of

mechanical and structural pipe that are

used in standard pipe applications. All

carbon steel pipes and tubes within the

physical description outlined above are

included within the scope of this

review, except line pipe, oil country

tubular goods, boiler tubing, cold-drawn

or cold-rolled mechanical tubing, pipe

and tube hollows for redraws, finished

scaffolding, and finished rigid conduit.

In accordance with the Final Negative

Determination of Scope Inquiry (56 FR

11608, March 21, 1996), pipe certified to

the API 5L line pipe specification, or

pipe certified to both the API 5L line

pipe specifications and the lessstringent ASTM A–53 standard pipe

specifications, which fall within the

physical parameters as outlined above,

and entered as line pipe of a kind used

for oil and gas pipelines, are outside of

the scope of the antidumping duty

order.

Imports of these products are

currently classifiable under the

following Harmonized Tariff Schedule

(HTS) subheadings: 7306.3010.00,

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. These

HTS item numbers are provided for

convenience and customs purposes. The

written descriptions remain dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

Comment 1: Use of Best Information

Available for 92/93 Administrative

Review.

Hylsa takes issue with the

Department’s statement that [t]he

inability of Hylsa to reconcile aggregate

quantities and values to its financial

statements throws into doubt the

accuracy of Hylsa’s reported

transaction-specific sales, and that

because of such inaccuracies, the

Department does [n]ot believe that it is

possible to calculate an accurate margin

for the first review. (64 FR 34190, at

34192). On the contrary, Hylsa states

that the Department was able to verify

that the reported information was

consistent with the sales information in

Hylsa’s accounting system. Any

discrepancies, argues Hylsa, were

minor, and did not undermine the

integrity of the response.

By way of explaining any

discrepancies, Hylsa points to the fact

that the verification for the review took

place over 21⁄2 years after Hylsa filed its

initial response. In the intervening time,

according to Hylsa, a failure of a

computer hard drive resulted in the loss

of the database used to prepare the

original response. Compounding the

problem, according to Hylsa, is the fact

that it had to respond to Department

requests for submissions and

information concerning four separate

reviews. According to Hylsa, the burden

of responding to information requests,

and preparing for verifications for the

94/95 administrative review concerning

the same product, prevented Hylsa from

having adequate time and resources to

resolve this problem.

In examining the discrepancies found

by the Department, Hylsa classifies

them into two categories. The first

category contains errors that Hylsa

asserts are inconsequential because,

according to Hylsa, the sales involved

will not be used in the Department’s

margin calculations. These involve third

country sales, and sales regarding

unreported secondary merchandise.

Hylsa places the discrepancies

between both U.S. and home market

quantity and value figures into the

second category. These discrepancies

might affect the Department’s dumping

calculations. However, according to

Hylsa, these discrepancies were small

and insignificant for the purposes of

verifying the accuracy of Hylsa’s

response.

Furthermore, Hylsa states that it

cooperated with the Department to the

best of its ability to provide the

requested information. Given the nature

of the errors, and the fact that Hylsa

cooperated with the Department, Hylsa

believes that the submitted information

was sufficient and that there is no

reasonable basis for the Department not

to use the submitted data.

Petitioners did not comment on the

issues.

Department’s Position

We disagree with respondent. To

begin, the Department takes issue with

Hylsa’s statement that it could not

provide the necessary database because

of a computer failure. During the

6138 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices

verification, Hylsa stated to the

Department that it had changed

computer systems and neglected to

preserve those data files which it would

need to document and explain its

method of responding to the

Department’s questionnaire. (See

verification report at page 20). Thus,

rather than being the result of a

computer failure, findings at verification

indicated that the company, in the

process of changing computer systems,

simply failed to preserve a key database. With regard to the errors in quantity

and value, both those known before

verification and those discovered at

verification, the Department disagrees

with Hylsa’s statements that they were

either minor or irrelevant to the

Department’s analysis. Establishing the

completeness and accuracy of the

response with respect to the quantity

and value of sales in both the home and

U.S. markets is a very significant

element of verification. Only with a

complete and accurate response can the

Department reasonably calculate values

for a price analysis. 19 CFR 353.37(a) states that [t]he

Secretary will use the best information

available whenever the Secretary: (1)

Does not receive a complete, accurate,

and timely response to the Secretary’s

request for factual information; or (2) Is

unable to verify, within the time

specified, the accuracy and

completeness of the factual information

submitted. In the instant case, Hylsa did

not provide a complete, accurate, and

timely response to the Department.

Additionally, the Department was

unable to verify, within the time

specified, the accuracy and

completeness of the information which

Hylsa did submit. At verification the Department

ascertained that Hylsa’s submission

contained two errors. Both errors

prevented the Department from

establishing completeness and accuracy.

The first error was that certain sales of

subject merchandise were not reported

to the Department until the verification,

including large amounts of sales of

subject merchandise in the home

market. The second error was that even

with these unreported sales included,

Hylsa was unable to reconcile quantity

and value figures. While the Department

provided Hylsa with three separate

opportunities to reconcile its quantity

and value figures during the verification

process, using separate databases, Hylsa

was ultimately unable to reconcile any

of the differences (See verification

report at 16). With regard to the first error

(unreported sales), the Department

discovered at verification that

approximately 10 percent of sales of

subject merchandise in the home market

(most of which, but not all, were

seconds) had not been reported and that

a large volume of third country sales

were not reported. The failure to report

approximately 10 percent of home

market sales until verification is

especially disturbing and, by itself, is

reasonable grounds to apply BIA to this

case (19 CFR 353.37(a)(1)). The

importance of providing accurate

information regarding the quantity and

value of sales in the home market, on a

timely basis, which forms the basis of

calculating fair market value, cannot be

overstated. Full disclosure of such

information prior to verification is

critical to the process of verifying its

accuracy and suitability for use in

determining fair market value. Due to

stringent time deadlines and the

significant limitations on Commerce’s

resources, ‘it is vital that accurate

information be provided promptly to

allow the agency sufficient time for

review.’ Ceramica Regiomontana, S.A.

v. United States, 10 CIT 399, 406, 636

F. Supp. 961, 967 (1986). Tatung Co. v.

United States, 18 CIT 1137, 1140 (1994).

The failure to report a substantial

portion of information regarding

quantity or value is sufficient grounds

for the application of BIA. The use of a

‘neutral’ margin . . . [where respondent

failed to report a significant percentage

of its home market prices] . . . would

be inconsistent with the purpose of BIA,

which is to insure a reasonably adverse

inference against respondents which fail

to comply fully with the Department’s

requests for information. (See Notice of

Final Determinations of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled

Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain

Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products,

Certain Corrosion-resistant Carbon Steel

Flat Products and Certain Cut-to-Length

Carbon Steel Plate from Germany, 58 FR

37136, 37145 (July 9, 1993)). As the

Court noted in Persico Pizzamiglio, S.A.

v. United States, by allowing the

Department to reject a submission in

toto, the court encourages full

disclosure by the respondent, because

only full disclosure will lead to a

dumping margin lower than that

established by employing BIA. Persico

Pizzamiglio, S.A. v. United States, 18

CIT 299 (CIT 1994). The lack of full

information prior to verification

substantially compromised the integrity

of Hylsa’s response. In addition to the failure of Hylsa to

report all home market sales of subject

merchandise, the Department was

unable to verify the quantity and value

figures for both home market and U.S.

sales for the review. Hylsa claims that

the loss of the database used to create

the original submission, as well as the

need to respond to multiple Department

requests for information on various

reviews over a one-year period,

complicated its efforts to reconcile

quantity and value figures. However, the

Department provided Hylsa with three

separate opportunities to reconcile the

quantity and value figures during

verification (See verification report at

16). Hylsa was unable to do so. The

failure to verify the submitted

information is sufficient grounds for the

application of BIA (19 CFR

353.37(a)(2)).

Despite its failure to reconcile

quantity and value, Hylsa argues that

the percentage differences were minor

and did not prevent the Department

from making reasonable price

comparisons. However, even accepting

Hylsa’s figures, some of the percentage

differences are sufficiently great to affect

the margin calculations (See Analysis

Memorandum, dated January 7, 2000).

More importantly, because the

Department was unable to verify

quantity and value figures, we have no

way of determining whether the

unreported sales we uncovered

represented all unreported sales.

Verification is not a complete audit, and

not an opportunity to provide

substantial new data. As we said in

Final Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Sodium Nitrate

from Chile (52 FR 25897, 25898 (July 9,

1987)):

Comment 4

SQM claims that during the first

period only 3.28 percent and during the

second period only 1.60 percent of sales

in the United States of commercial

grade nitrates were not included in its

response and these omissions would not

have appreciably affect the

Department’s analysis.

Department’s Position

The Department was unable to

complete its price analysis because of

the omission of an undeterminable

number of U.S. sales and a substantial

number of other deficiencies found at

verification. The purpose of verification

is to confirm the accuracy of the data

submitted; the Department is not

authorized to use verification for the

purpose of supplementing the

information originally missing from the

response and investigating these

unreported sales. Failure to include

certain sales information in the original

response meant that the Department was

not able to conduct verification.

Taken together, the Department

believes that the totality of the errors

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Notices 6139

and omissions found at verification

render Hylsa’s submitted data unusable

for purposes of calculating a margin. To

summarize, at verification the

Department found that both the reported

quantity and value of home market sales

were misreported to varying degrees.

Additionally, the value of sales to the

United States was also misreported.

Hylsa was unable to reconcile these

differences. Finally, Hylsa failed to

report a number of home market sales of

subject merchandise until the

Department arrived at Hylsa to begin

verification.

The decision to resort to BIA in an

administrative review is made on a caseby-case basis after evaluating all

evidence in the administrative record.

See Allied-Signal Aerospace Corp. v.

United States, 966 F.2d 1185, 1191 (Fed.

Cir. 1993). Once again, the multiple and

pervasive nature of errors and omissions

in the information provided by Hylsa

prevented the Department from relying

on Hylsa’s response, as the Department

was not confident that the response was

an accurate reflection of Hylsa’s sales

activity during the POR. Therefore, the

use of BIA is appropriate. Since Hylsa

substantially cooperated with the

Department’s request for information,

the Department believes that assigning

Hylsa second-tier BIA is the most

reasonable approach. (See Allied Signal

Aerospace Corp. v. United States, 996

F.2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (concluding

that the Department’s two-tiered BIA

methodology, under which cooperating

companies are assigned the lower,

second tier BIA rate, is reasonable).) As

such, the Department is not deviating

from its preliminary results with respect

to the first administrative review.

Comment 2: Use of Best Information

Available for 93/94 Administrative

Review.

Hylsa believes that the Department’s

use of BIA in establishing Hylsa’s cost

of production in the second review is

unfair. While acknowledging that it

failed to report weighted-average costs

for the full POR, Hylsa states that it had

no reason to suspect that its

methodology was inappropriate until

verification. In fact, Hylsa indicates that

it had ample reason to believe that the

methodology was the Department’s

preferred methodology for this review.

In the second administrative review,

Hylsa reported six-month costs

corresponding to the time in which

Hylsa made sales to the United States.

The Department approved a six-month

reporting period for sales data in this

review, and had approved six-month

cost reporting for the 94/95

administrative review. Furthermore,

after the submission, the Department

did not notify Hylsa that the cost data

were in error. Citing Olympic

Adhesives, Inc. v. U.S., 899 F.2d 1565,

1573 (Fed. Cir. 1990), Hylsa indicates

that the Department was required to

give notice of any perceived

inadequacies of the responses. Since the

Department did not do so prior to

verification, Hylsa asserts, there was no

reason to suspect that the reported cost

data was unacceptable. Therefore, in the

interest of fairness, Hylsa requests that

the Department use Hylsa’s reported

costs for this review.

Petitioners did not comment on the

issues.

Department’s Position

We agree with respondent, and have

used its reported costs when calculating

the margin for this administrative

review. The Department accepted

limited reporting in the third

administrative review. As the

Department used a similar methodology

in a previous review, the use of limited

reporting in this review is consistent

with previous practice. Further, the

Department did not request that Hylsa

alter its reporting methodology in this

review. Consequently, application of

BIA for this review is not warranted.

Final Results of Review

Based on our review of the arguments

presented above, for these final results

we have made no changes in the

margins for Hylsa in the first review. We

have determined that Hylsa’s weightedaverage margin for the period April 28,

1992 through October 31, 1993 is 32.62

percent. Hylsa’s margin for the

November 1, 1993 through October 31,

1994 period of review is 7.17 percent.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. For assessment purposes, we

have calculated importer-specific ad

valorem duty assessment rates for the

merchandise based on the ratio of the

total amount of antidumping duties

calculated for the examined sales during

the POR to the total quantity of sales

examined during the POR. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to Customs.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements will be effective upon

completion of the fnal results of these

administrative reviews for all shipments

of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe

from Mexico entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication of the final results

of these administrative reviews, as

provided in section 751(a)(1) of the

Tariff Act:

(1) The cash deposit rate for Hylsa

will continue to be 8.31 percent (See

Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe

from Mexico: Final Results of

Administrative Review, 63 FR 33041

(June 17, 1998);

(2) For previously reviewed or

investigated companies other than

Hylsa, the cash deposit rate will

continue to be the company-specific rate

publish for the most recent period;

(3) If the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a prior review,

or the 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 conducted by the

Department, the cash deposit rate will

be 32.62 percent. See Antidumping

Duty Order; Circular Welded Non-Alloy

Steel Pipe from Mexico, 57 FR 49453

(November 2, 1992).

This notice also 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 the

antidumping duties occurred and the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APOs) of their

responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of the return or 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.

This determination is issued and

published in accordance with sections

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act

(19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 1677f(i)(1)).

Dated: January 11, 2000.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–2849 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510 –DS–P